Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Mobile Shops

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to regulate the activities of mobile shops in rural areas.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Wood-house): Not in the present Session.

Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that although these mobile shops from the towns can be quite useful in rural areas, in some cases they represent unfair competition with village shops which have become such a feature of every village today?

Mr. Woodhouse: I am aware that that and many other views are held about this subject, which is difficult and complicated. As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend is now carrying out a general review of shops legislation in the light of a questionnaire issued earlier this year to all interested organisations.

Training Courses (Student Grants)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in reviewing the grants payable to students at Home Office training courses, his Department will regard these courses as entitling a student to a grant without parental means test, as is done for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research or Ministry of Education state studentships.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): Grants

to child care and probation students are based upon the Minister of Education's University and Other Award Regulations, 1962, and are exactly the same as for other students taking professional training. I do not know of any grounds for treating child care and probation students exceptionally.

Sir B. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at this? Is he not aware that many of the people engaged in these extremely important studies, which are essential to the welfare of children, and on probation work, are mostly over the age of 21? How can he expect them to be maintained by their parents? As the parents cannot be compelled to maintain them in the legal sense, how does he expect those concerned to be able to carry on their studies if the income of their parents has to be taken into consideration in this way?

Mr. Brooke: There is no shortage of candidates. The number of probation students in training is now almost twice as many as in 1961, and the number of child care students nearly three times as many.

Sir B. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman make this imposition upon them because of that? Is not that a scandalous argument?

Mr. Brooke: These are perfectly reasonable regulations, and probation and child care students are treated in almost exactly the same way as teachers in training.

Driving Offences

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers of motor-cars, motor-cycles, motor coaches and goods vehicles, respectively, were prosecuted, and how many convicted, for exceeding the speed limit or crossing a road junction against the traffic lights, respectively, in the Metropolitan Police District in the years 1961, 1962, 1963 and to the latest convenient date in 1964.

Mr. Woodhouse: I will, with permission, circulate the information for the years 1961, 1962 and 1963 in the OFFICIAL


REPORT. Information for 1964 is not yet available.

Mr. Johnson: Irrespective of the number of prosecutions and convictions, is my hon. Friend aware that the practice of crossing a road intersection against a red light appears to be increasing? Will he give instructions to the police to keep a perticular look out for any drivers

EXCEEDING SPEED LIMITS


Type of vehicle
Number of prosecutions
Number of convictions


1961
1962
1963
1961
1962
1963


Private cars
12,212
16,952
19,221
12,056
16,753
18,966


Motor cycles
8,390
9,130
8,660
8,121
8,967
8,525


Public service vehicles
97
47
54
97
46
54


Goods vehicles
5,223
6,497
4,670
5,164
6,429
4,605


TOTALS
25,922
32,626
32,605
25,438
32,195
32,150

Road Transport (Police Escort Duties)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made in terms of available manpower or money of the effort of the Metropolitan Police in accompanying abnormal indivisible loads last year; and what were the normal duties of the police officers allocated to those duties.

Mr. Woodhouse: During 1963 traffic patrols escorting abnormal indivisible loads through the Metropolitan Police District covered 253,600 miles and the duty occupied 21,600 man-hours. These escorts are regarded as part of the normal duties of the police in the regulation of traffic. The estimated cost of this part of their traffic duties was £22,000.

committing this offence, which is quite inexcusable and extremely dangerous?

Mr. Woodhouse: The figures of prosecutions show an increase. It is not for my right hon. Friend to give an instruction to the police in this matter, but I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend has said will come to their attention.

Following are the figures:

Mr. Digby: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is a waste of police manpower, which is short anyhow? Has not the time come to impose some kind of disincentive on those who move these loads, for instance, by making some charge? Do not they have every advantage by sending by road and not by ship or rail?

Mr. Woodhouse: Suggestions to this effect have been made from time to time, but the practice of the police is not to make any charge for their services on the public highway or any public place. The police prevent obstructions on the roads as part of their general duty to the community, and it would not be feasible to distinguish this from their other public duties.

Mr. Hocking: Would my hon. Friend confirm that these heavy vehicles already


pay much in excess of normal vehicles in Road Fund duty?

Mr. Woodhouse: That is a question not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Diplomatic Immunity (Traffic and Parking Offences)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that all known cases of deliberate violation of traffic or parking regulations by the drivers of cars with diplomatic immunity are to be reported to him.

Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend already receives from the Commissioner of Police details of most cases in which persons entitled to diplomatic immunity are alleged to have offended against the traffic or parking regulations, and where, had it not been for the entitlement to immunity, a fixed penalty might have been enforced or the police might have preferred charges. My right hon. Friend is arranging for all such cases to be reported in future.

Mr. Johnson: Are the police and traffic wardens advised, or instructed, to take particulars of all drivers committing offences and of cars parked in contravention of the regulations, even if they have a diplomatic immunity sticker on the car?

Mr. Woodhouse: Yes, Sir, I can confirm that.

Mr. Fletcher: What does the hon. Gentleman do when he gets this information? Does he bring it to the notice of those concerned?

Mr. Woodhouse: It depends on the gravity of the case, but in a number of cases representations are made to the head of the mission concerned, and in the most serious cases it is sometimes thought right to request a waiver of the offender's immunity to enable a prosecution to proceed.

Litter Act (Prosecutions)

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under the Litter Act in each year since

it became law; and what was the average penalty imposed.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): From 7th August, 1958, when the Litter Act, 1958, came into force, until the end of 1962, the last year for which statistics are available, 10,242 persons were prosecuted, of whom 938 were convicted. Nearly all those convicted were fined and in 1962 the average fine was approximately £2. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number of persons prosecuted and the number convicted year by year.

Mr. Longden: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Litter Act is doing what it was intended to do? In the Royal and respectable borough of Kensington, the streets often look as though a paper chase has recently been through them. Is the reason that the law is insufficient, or is it that it is not being enforced?

Miss Pike: I gave an incorrect figure in my Answer. I should have said that 9,938 people were convicted, which gives a slightly better picture, but I agree that there is a considerable amount of litter. This is something about which we are all worried. It is principally for the local authority to take proceedings under the Litter Act, though it is open to individuals to do so. The police cannot normally undertake the primary responsibility of enforcing the Act because of their many important commitments. The provisions of the Act are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Sir Knox Cunningham: How many of these prosecutions are for the dumping of large and unsightly articles by the side of the roads?

Miss Pike: I have not got those figures.

Mr. Worsley: Will my hon. Friend be as firm as possible on this subject? Will she bear in mind that a well-publicised prosecution for this offence would do more than anything else to improve the situation?

Miss Pike: I agree with the necessity of constantly bringing this to the public notice.

Following is the table:



Persons prosecuted
Persons convicted


1958 (from 7th August)
268
262


1959
2,450
2,370


1960
2,599
2,527


1961
2,395
2,322


1962
2,530
2,457



10,242
9,938

Employment of Prisoners (Advisory Committees)

Mr. Fitch: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local advisory committees on the employment of prisoners are in existence; and to which prisons they are attached.

Miss Pike: Four; at Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester prisons.

Mr. Fitch: Can the hon. Lady say whether there is a trade union representative on each of these advisory committees?

Miss Pike: Yes, Sir, there is.

Miss Bacon: All the prisons which the hon. Lady mentioned are local prisons. Would not it be more appropriate if some were at regional and central training prisons?

Miss Pike: They are large prisons in industrial areas, and these are possibly the best and most suitable places in which to have this type of committee.

Probation and After-Care Service

Sir J. Eden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what further consideration he has given to the representations made by the National Association of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies in which they called for a guarantee that the officers of the local societies would be given employment in proposed new Probation and After-Care Service; and what reply he has sent;
(2) whether he is satisfied that the knowledge and experience of the existing Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies will be fully available to the proposed Probation and After-Care Service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: I am sure that Probation and After-Care Committees will make full

use of the relevant experience and knowledge of local Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies. I have explained to the National Association of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies that I as Home Secretary cannot give a guarantee that all employees of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies will be appointed to the proposed Probation and After-Care Service, since the decision will not rest with me; it must rest with the Probation and After-Care Committees which will be the employing authorities. My hope is that most of these existing employees will in fact be appointed to the new service, because I attach great importance to this.

Sir J. Eden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will continue to do all that he can to stress the importance of employing these people in the new service, especially as they have acquired special experience and expertise? Would not he agree that many of them have been, and are, doing most devoted and loyal work, many of them for extremely small salaries which the existing societies can only just afford to pay? Will he encourage at every turn the continued employment of these people who have done such useful work?

Mr. Brooke: I shall certainly do so. I said that I attach importance to the re-employment of as many of these people as possible. I think that they have generously agreed that it will be of great value if we can get the whole After-Care Service on to a more systematic basis than it has had hitherto.

Care of Chlidren (Boarding Out)

Mr. D. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it is desirable wherever possible for children in the care of local authorities to be boarded out with foster parents, but that the percentages boarded out vary widely among different local authorities; what steps he is taking to remind authorities of their duties in this respect; and whether the total percentage of children boarded out is increasing.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. A local authority is required under the Children Act, 1948, to board out a child in its care unless this is not practicable or desirable, and there has been a steady increase


in the percentage boarded out in England and Wales from 37 per cent. in 1950 to 52 per cent. in 1963. When I addressed the local authorities' child care conference recently I drew attention to the scope in some areas for further development of boarding out, and I take every opportunity of stressing this.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the largest local authority in the country, the L.C.C., seems to have been particularly unsuccessful in this matter, and that it has the lowest percentage of any authority for the boarding out of children? Can my right hon. Friend say why this is so?

Mr. Brooke: London is said to present particular difficulties in this respect. My hope is that when child-care work in London is taken over by the new London boroughs next year they will give special attention to this and will improve on the present figures.

Miss Bacon: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that in London it is probably the difficult housing position which creates some of the difficulties? Will he persuade local authorities to indulge in much more publicity in their areas to attract the right kind of foster parent?

Mr. Brooke: I agree with the hon. Lady. I think that much more publicity is needed in some areas. We must get the right kind of foster parent, and I hope that the new London boroughs will pay special attention to this.

Prisoners (Solitary Confinement)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Mr. Thomas Wisbey, Mr. James Hussey, and Mr. Robert Welch were held in solitary confinement for six weeks after the train robbery trial while their appeals were being considered.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Thomas Wisbey, imprisoned in Oxford, James Hussey in Wandsworth, and Robert Welch in Canterbury, were held in solitary confinement for six weeks.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why three prisoners sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment in connection with the

great train robbery were held in solitary confinement for six weeks.

Mr. Brooke: All these prisoners had former convictions and were associated in the same or connected serious offences. It has been necessary in the interests of security that for limited periods they should be segregated from other prisoners and from each other.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the previous convictions of these men were for comparatively minor offences? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us are afraid that prison governors exercise their powers in this matter in a somewhat arbitrary manner? Is there a statutory limitation on the length of time for which prisoners can be kept in solitary confinement? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that these men have not been put back into solitary confinement after the rejection of their appeals yesterday?

Mr. Brooke: I assure the hon. Gentleman that governors of prisons adhere strictly to Rule 43 of the new Prison Rules which have been approved by the House. It is a very frequent practice when recidivist prisoners are sentenced to more than four years in prison to remove them from association for the first weeks of their sentence. I have no information as to what might have happened since yesterday.

Mr. Lubbock: There have been other cases in which men sentenced to more than four years have been kept in solitary confinement for more than six weeks. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that three men were released from solitary confinement as soon as representations were made to that effect by their solicitors?

Mr. Brooke: This is not a matter of anything being overlooked. I said that it is the general practice that when a recidivist is sentenced to a long term of imprisonment he is removed from association for a period in the first instance. This is extremely desirable in the public interest.

Police (Assistance By Public)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to make


the public more aware of the ways in which they can help the police in the execution of their duty; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue a circular setting out the duties of members of the public in coming to the assistance of police officers on duty who are attempting to deal with breaches of the peace.

Mr. Brooke: I am anxious to bring home to members of the public that it is their duty under common law to help a constable in preventing or dealing with a breach of the peace when called upon to do so; and I hope that these Questions and my reply may help to achieve that. I doubt whether the issue of a circular would be appropriate. The best advice to a member of the public who is asked to help is to follow the directions of the police officer on the spot.

Mr. Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the existing procedure acts as a deterrent? Will not he establish the principle that any member of the public coming to the rescue of a police officer is automatically entitled to compensation for any loss or damage he may sustain in coming to the rescue of the officer?

Mr. Brooke: I answered a Question on this subject the other day. It is the duty of a member of the public to come to the help of a police officer if he is called upon, and there are various funds in the different police forces from which payment can be made to members of the public who suffer any injury in so doing.

Mr. Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Hopkins) and myself put these two Questions down because of remarks made by the Lord Mayor of Bristol on this subject? Would he not agree that in the public's mind there is perhaps a little uncertainty as to how a member of the public might help, and will he continue to do all that he can to clear up this uncertainty?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. I am very much obliged to the Lord Mayor of Bristol for what he said recently on this

subject, and I hope that these Questions and Answers will reinforce his remarks.

Mr. Grimond: The Home Secretary said that it was the duty of the public to come to the assistance of a police officer if called upon to do so. Could he clear up this point a little further? Is it not the duty of a member of the public to assist a police officer even if not called upon to do so, and, if I am wrong about that, is his liability increased if he intervenes without being called upon to do so?

Mr. Brooke: There is a clear duty on a member of the public to come to his assistance if called upon to do so, but there is also a general duty on all members of the public to assist in the maintenance of public law and order.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the new scheme for compensating victims of crimes of violence will apply to those cases, and would it not help to encourage the public to play their full part?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. I hope that it will.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that it is the duty of the public to assist the police whether they are in uniform or not?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. That is so.

Prisoners (Earnings and Expenditure)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent per week per prisoner to cover food and drink, clothing, bedding, furniure, equipment, and medicines in the years 1939, 1950, 1960 and 1963; and if it is his policy that prisoners should in future be employed on more useful work, thus earning money which can supplement the sums devoted to their health and welfare.

Mr. Brooke: Comparable figures for the various years are not available because the basis of accounting and methods of provision have changed. Such figures for earlier years as are available have been published in the annual reports of the Commissioners of Prisons. I will, with permission, circulate figures for 1963 in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with an explanation


of the basis on which they have been calculated. As I have said on many occasions, I am extremely anxious that prisoners should be employed more productively, but the level of expenditure on prison services does not depend on this.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us noted with pleasure his Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) on the advisory committees, and does he not think that it would help in this question of employment if there was trade union representation on these advisory committees? Is he also aware that some of us who have seen these figures nevertheless believe that they are not really in keeping with the figures that are necessary for expenditure to keep a prisoner in health and welfare and to help to restore his dignity? I am grateful to hear that the right hon. Gentleman intends to try to extend this issue of further employment, and I thank him for his Answer.

Mr. Brooke: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the food in prisons, although monotonous, is adequate and good. I have often eaten it myself. I am assisted by a very valuable advisory council on the employment of prisoners, under the chairmanship of Sir Wilfrid Anson, on which trade union representatives serve.

Following is the information:


AVERAGE WEEKLY COST PER PRISONER OP GOODS PROVIDED DURING 1963



s.
d.


Victualling
14
4


Clothing, bedding, equipment, etc.
9
10


Medicines, etc.

6

NOTES:

1. The cost of the food comprises the amount spent on bulk purchase and the estimated value, at growers' prices, of the produce of prison farms. At retail prices the cost would be more than double.

2. The cost of the clothing, bedding, equipment, etc., includes the amount spent on bulk purchase and the cost (plus a small percentage) of the materials used in the manufacture of those goods which are produced in prison workshops.

3. The cost of the medicines, etc., is the cost of purchase.

4. These figures relate to the inmates of establishments the major use of which is as prisons.

Motor Vehicles (Noise)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police now have means of measuring noise from motor vehicles; in how many cases the Metropolitan Police have proceeded against those responsible for vehicles making undue noise, and with what result; and how many prosecutions have been undertaken in the Metropolitan Police District of drivers sounding horns when stationary or in the proscribed hours, and with what result.

Mr. Woodhouse: The law does not prescribe maximum permissible levels for noise from motor vehicles and the police do not therefore need noise level meters for law enforcement purposes. In 1963 there were 2,960 prosecutions in the Metropolitan Police District for offences relating to vehicle noise, of which 2,913 were successful; 489 cautions were also issued. There were 16 prosecutions for sounding horns when stationary or in the proscribed hours, all of which were successful; 30 cautions were also issued for such offences.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people will be grateful to hear this and will wish the police well in their efforts to reduce what appears to be a growing nuisance? Has my hon. Friend observed that many drivers nowadays seem to be using their horns as a substitute for careful driving or as an outlet for their impatience?

Mr. Woodhouse: I have, indeed, noticed that, as I am sure many other hon. Members have. I would tell my hon. Friend that the figures for 1963 represent a substantial increase on the figures for 1962, so he will see that the police are doing their duty in this matter.

Sir J. Eden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to horns some of the worst offences in this regard are caused by motor vehicles without silencers? It seems to me that the smaller the car the more noise the driver wants to make. Would he ensure, in so far as he is able, that this nuisance is brought to the notice of the authorities, and can he say whether he has had success in inviting the support of the motor vehicle manufacturers?

Mr. Woodhouse: It is an offence under the Motor Vehicles (Construction and


Use) Regulations, 1963, to fail to have a silencer or to maintain it in good and efficient working order. This is certainly a matter to which the police pay attention, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the police can take action only when they witness an offence or when competent witnesses are prepared to come forward. The onus to some extent must rest on the public. With regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, I think that is rather a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter in which members of the public can help very considerably by reporting instances of noisy motor cars and motor bicycles and taking their numbers to the police so that appropriate action can be taken?

Mr. Woodhouse: I agree, but it is further necessary that they should be willing to give evidence.

Transport of Valuables (Security)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what official advice has been given to banks, commercial and industrial concerns, which transport money and other valuables by road, with a view to counter-acting robbery with violence and the seizure of loaded vehicles.

Mr. Brooke: It is primarily the responsibility of the owner to protect the contents of vehicles against theft, but the police are very willing to give advice on how to minimise the risks of theft, and there is increasingly good co-operation in this matter between the police and firms transporting valuables. The new Police Research and Planning Branch at the Home Office is paying special attention to this important subject.

Mr. Henderson: Is not crime becoming a highly organised and lucrative business, and would not the Home Secretary appeal to the banks and other business concerns affected by this problem with a view to securing their cooperation with the police authorities to plan and organise security arrangements which will help to defeat the modern, mobile criminal?

Mr. Brooke: There is far too much of this kind of crime. The Road Haul-

age Committee has a vehicles security committee with which the police work closely, and I attach a great deal of importance to the work that my new Police Research and Planning Branch is doing. When it reports, I think that we shall have to give consideration to the best means of conveying its suggestions to all concerned, whether through chief constables or otherwise.

Mr. Henderson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is becoming necessary to organise and plan counter-operations if we are to defeat these modern mobile criminals?

Mr. Brooke: That is one of the reasons why I have taken the initiative of setting up a Police Research and Planning Branch in the Home Office for the first time.

Probation Service, Merthyr Tydfil

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give his reasons for insisting upon the combining of the probation service of Merthyr Tydfil with that of the Glamorgan County Council.

Mr. Brooke: I have accepted the arguments in paragraph 174 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service which recommended the merging of small probation areas in larger units. This policy is now being pursued throughout the country, and I have been unable, after very careful consideration, to find sufficient grounds for making an exception in the case of Merthyr Tydfil.

Mr. Davies: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is nothing dogmatic in the reference that he has made to the Morrison Committee? Has not he already complimented the splendid work of the probation service in Merthyr Tydfil? Is it not a fact that he has made no practical suggestions in respect of all the representations made to him as to how that service can be improved? Is not he aware that his action now is regarded literally as an offence against the excellent Merthyr Tydfil probation service?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. It is in no sense a criticism. As I told the hon. Member, my decision in no way reflects upon the


value which I attach to the close interest which the Committee has taken in the work of the probation officers. But the Morrison Committee recommended that any probation office which could not sustain a staff of at least six probation officers and a principal probation officer should be merged with a larger administrative unit. Until recently the Merthyr Tydfil probation service had only two probation officers. Now it has only three.

Sir H. Harrison: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that his policy of merging smaller authorities is an excellent one, which is paying very good dividends? The hon. Member may know of the success of the probation service amalgamation of East and West Suffolk. He would be wise to ponder on that.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. Frequently there is objection in some quarters to a proposed merging, but the criticism always dies away because of the success of the larger units.

Mr. Davies: My Question was addressed to the Home Secretary and not to a stranger who does not know the first thing about my area of South Wales.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the event of the combining of the Merthyr Tydfil probation service with that of Glamorgan, what will be the proportional representation on the then joint probation committee of each authority, respectively; and what will be the function and authority of the present Merthyr Tydfil probation committee.

Mr. Brooke: I have asked the Glamorgan and Merthyr Tydfil probation committees to consult together and to advise me about representation on the committee for the new combined area. After combination, it will be the duty of the justices acting for the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil to provide a probation case committee. Case committees have a statutory duty to exercise a general supervision over the work and records of probation officers, to receive and consider reports from them on the progress of persons under their supervision, and to afford

probation officers such help and advice as they can.

Mr. Davies: Is not the Home Secretary aware that he has not answered my Question? I was not asking for the obvious reply with which he entertained the House. I was asking him to be good enough to tell the hon. Member representing Merthyr Tydfil what would be the proportional representation of Merthyr Tydfil, side by side with the Glamorgan administrative county, in the so-called joint probation committee.

Mr. Brooke: As I indicated in my Answer, I hope that the Merthyr and Glamorgan committees will be making agreed recommendations to me. It is not for me to be dogmatic and to lay down what they should do without consulting them.

Mr. Davies: In view of the unfavourable reply of the Home Secretary, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter again at the first opportunity.

Disturbances, Smith Square (Police Duties)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen were required at Smith Square on the morning of Wednesday, 24th June to maintain order; and whether he is satisfied that sufficient police were available for this purpose.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the action taken by the Metropolitan Police as a result of the disturbances outside Transport House of 24th June.

Sir R. Dudley Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police were involved in keeping order during the rioting in Smith Square on 24th June, 1964.

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority the Metropolitan Police were called to Transport House on 24th June to quell a riot.

Mr. Brooke: I would refer my hon. Friends to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) and Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 2nd July.

Sir R. Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was reported that several hon. Members were roughly handled before a sufficiency of police arrived? Is he further aware that, although no hon. Member on this side of the House wishes to curtail the right of a Socialist, young or old, to demonstrate against injustices, none the less this incident happened within an area in which political demonstrations had been expressly forbidden under the authority of a Sessional Order of this House? Will he ensure that the Metropolitan Police act in liaison with the officials of Transport House in order to ensure that a sufficiency of police will be able to prevent rioting on future occasions when members of the Socialist Party are due to be expelled on doctrinal grounds?

Mr. Brooke: I gather that the Metropolitan Police did their best in these difficult and unexpected circumstances. I must say that I do not think that their Socialism has taught these young Socialists how to behave.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: We can understand a certain amount of sensitivity among the Opposition, but can my right hon. Friend tell us just what was the net cost to ratepayers and/or taxpayers of this incident? However small this amount is, does he appreciate that many of us resent the fact that our hard-pressed police forces should have to control warring factions in the party opposite?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot isolate any extra expenditure that fell upon the Metropolitan Police, but the Metropolitan Police are always ready to deal with all kinds of extraordinary people.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. Friend feel that he is dealing with this disgraceful incident with the seriousness that it deserves? Is he aware that according to Press reports the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) was lifted off her feet during this demonstration, which shows that the demonstrators were not lightly-built striplings? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to protect hon. Ladies less well able to defend themselves than is the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange?

Mr. Brooke: I would remind my hon. Friend and the House that it is the Commissioner of Police and not I who is responsible for policing the Metropolis. In an Answer I gave in the House last week about this incident I indicated that the demonstrators were aggressive.

Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are much touched by the solicitude of his hon. Friends and realise that it is only their very great concern for our well-being and safety that has prompted these questions? Is he further aware that we are all the more touched when we realise that hon. Members opposite have never shown such a concern when members of the Government have been assailed by the Empire Loyalists?

Mr. Brooke: My concern is that the Queen's peace shall be kept. I understand that some of these demonstrators were demonstrating against conscription—indicating, I suppose, that they had inside knowledge of what a Labour Government would lead to.

Mr. Renton: If these attacks by young Socialists upon their leaders get any worse, will my right hon. Friend arrange for Ministers' private detectives, who have so little to do, to go to the assistance of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Brooke: I think that I had better keep out of this.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. I do not in any way wish to circumscribe the enjoyment of hon. Members, but can we take it, Mr. Speaker, that if the positions were reversed the Chair would give as much latitude to questions from hon. Members on this side of the House as has been given to hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the implication of that point of order is meant to be. If the hon. Member wishes to suggest a want of impartiality in the Chair, it should be a matter for a substantive Motion.

Juvenile Delinquency

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will request the Advisory Committee on Delinquency to inquire into the relationship between


education, social environment, industrial and recreational training and the problems of adolescence in community life.

Mr. Brooke: These matters so far as they relate to the problem of delinquency are all within the scope of the Advisory Committee. I think the Committee should determine its own priorities.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the Home Secretary agree that the problem of delinquency affects only a minority of young people today and that what is required is a wider examination of the moral, social and economic problems which influence young people in their everyday life?

Mr. Brooke: I think that we have a problem here. If one casts the net too wide one would never get anywhere. My Advisory Committee is making a special study of certain subjects; and other studies have been initiated which are concerned with the influence of education on young people, which are not confined to delinquency. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman examines the situation, he will find that we are making a serious and systematic study of most aspects of the matter about which he is concerned.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the Minister agree that delinquency is closely tied up with the educational provision made for these young people, and this Committee is surely concerned with the prevention of delinquency? Therefore, if what is suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend were studied by the Committee, would not it ease the problem with which the right hon. Gentleman has to deal?

Mr. Brooke: I am very glad to have members of the teaching profession on my Committee. We have already decided to set up a sub-committee to consider the extent of the connection beween delinquency and, for example, the difficulty of adjustment at the time of transition from school life to working life.

Mr. Henry Scudder

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement about his

inquiries into the possibility of a miscarriage of justice in the case of Mr. Henry Scudder, of Slade Green, who was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment on 12th May, 1960; what stage the inquiries have reached; and when they are likely to be completed.

Miss Pike: My right hon. Friend has received this week a comprehensive report from the police of their further inquiries into this case. The report is being urgently studied and I hope to be in a position to inform the hon. Member of the outcome at an early date.

Mr. Dodds: I thank the hon. Lady for that statement. I recognise that this has been done speedily. Will she also recognise that this man has been deprived of his liberty for four years without seeming to get even rough justice? I should be very pleased, therefore, if she would expedite the decision?

Miss Pike: We shall move in this matter as quickly as possible.

Racecourses (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Kelley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the names of the racecourses which will cease to receive financial assistance from the Levy Board after the end of 1965.

Mr. Kitson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the Recommendations of the Levy Board; and from which racecourses it is intended to withdraw financial support after 1965.

Mr. Brooke: I understand that the turf authorities have informed the managements of Bogside, Lewes, Lincoln and Rothbury racecourses that they do not intend to allocate fixtures to these courses after next year. The Horserace Betting Levy Board has submitted proposals to me under Section 25(2)(d) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, for offering compensatory payments to these courses for the withdrawal of the financial support which the Board had previously undertaken to give them up to the end of 1966. I am prepared to approve such


payments. I understand that the Board no longer intends to proceed with its earlier provisional proposals to discontinue financial support to certain other courses after 1966, namely, Edinburgh, Folkestone, Pontefract, Sedgefield, Stockton and West Norfolk Hunt.

Mr. Kelley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply on behalf of my constituents who live adjacent to Pontefract and who will be pleased that they are still to be able to enjoy racing in the future. Is there anything which in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman would have prevented this statement from being made earlier, as there does not seem to be any reason why this information should have been withheld for such a long time?

Mr. Brooke: It has not been withheld for such a long time. I could not make any statement until I received the views and recommendations of the Levy Board.

Mr. Kitson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his reply will be very much welcomed in the North, particularly at Stockton, Sedgfield and Pontefract, where there will continue to be racing? Can he say whether it is intended now to have steeplechasing at Stockton and what is likely to happen to the Scottish Grand National? Will he discuss with the Levy Board to ensure that if the course at Liverpool is not available, the Grand National will be kept in the north of England?

Mr. Brooke: These are far-reaching questions. I should not like the House to imagine that the Home Secretary—though he has many duties—is the arbiter of all racing matters. Questions about whether there will be steeple-chasing and where the Grand National will be run are matters for the turf authorities and the managers of racecourses.

Mr. Taverne: Is the Minister aware that his announcement will cause great disappointment at Lincoln, with its long history of racing? How can the Home Secretary justify the fact that the Levy Board, which receives its income from all racecourses from bets which are placed there, proposes to redistribute that income only to some racecourses?

Mr. Brooke: That is a matter for the Levy Board. In this case, it is the turf authorities which have acted. It is the turf authorities, over whom I have no control whatever in this matter, who have indicated to the managements of these four courses that, in the interests of racing generally, they do not propose to allocate fixtures to these four courses after next year.

Mr. Kimball: Will my right hon. Friend make clear whether there is any form of appeal which racecourse authorities, such as the Lincoln authority, can make against being cut off from the grant? Can he tell me who actually makes the final decision?

Mr. Brooke: I think that the final decision as to whether fixtures are allocated to a racecourse is made by the turf authorities, and any representations should be made to them.

Voting Rights (Young Persons)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special studies he has ordered with a view to shortening the period of time that elpases between a person's twenty-first birthday and the date on which he may vote.

Mr. Woodhouse: This is one of the matters which my right hon. Friend has noted for consideration and consultation between the parties after the General Election.

Mr. Goodhart: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many young persons share the opinion of the Home Secretary that the present arrangements are far from ideal? Can there be any change in the law unless there has been a special preparatory study?

Mr. Woodhouse: I do not think that any preparatory study is necessary to support the opinion of my right hon. Friend that the present state of the law is not ideal. It is also complicated, and we certainly intend to try to simplify it.

Victims of Crimes of Violence (Compensation)

Mr. Mapp: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the scheme for compensation for victims


of crimes of violence, he will direct that hearings he held in large regional cities, including Manchester.

Mr. Brooke: There is provision in the scheme for hearings to be held outside London as necessary. No direction from me is required.

Mr. Mapp: What criteria have been used for the scheme, particularly mentioning—apart from London—Cardiff and Edinburgh? I take it that the scheme will have regard to population areas. What difficulty is there about recognising great regional cities and saying so at this stage so that those who may unfortunately require it will know that a hearing can be reasonably accessible to them?

Mr. Brooke: The White Paper paid due respect to Scotland and Wales, of which Edinburgh and Cardiff are the capitals. It will be for the board to decide from time to time where to hold hearings, whether in Manchester or other great cities. That will depend no doubt on the number of unsatisfied applicants for compensation and where they come from.

Dagenham Greyhound Track (Bets)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approaches the Metropolitan Police have received to inquire into the conspiracy to defraud the public at Dagenham greyhound track on the afternoon of Tuesday, 30th June; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Woodhouse: I am informed that no complaint has been made to the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Lewis: Is it a fact that the Dagenham track people should pay out the money to people who have done nothing illegal and that bookmakers should honour their bets and see that those who have "pulled a fast one" on them receive payment?

Mr. Woodhouse: I do not think it is for me to interpret the law on this matter. I understand from Press reports that some of these matters will be the subject of legal action, so I do not think I should comment on them.

Car Parking, London

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

ment whether, in view of the photographic and other evidence which has been sent to him showing the different treatment given in London to parkers of large chauffeur-driven cars compared with small family cars, he will now cause an inquiry to be made.

Mr. Woodhouse: No, Sir. The Commissioner of Police informs me that the results of his inquiries do not support the suggestion that large chauffeur-driven cars are given preferential treatment by the police and traffic wardens. I am writing to the hon. Member giving details of the results of the Commissioner's inquiries.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Could my hon. Friend tell me how much evidence he needs on this subject, because I, like probably any hon. Member, could give him daily evidence of this happening in many places?

Mr. Woodhouse: I should be happy to study any evidence my hon. Friend gives me, but despite the form in which the Question is cast, having examined the evidence which has been sent to me so far, I can only say that it appears to relate entirely to self-driven cars.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Did the Under-Secretary see a programme on television a few weeks ago—I think it was called "The Braden Beat"—in which specific instances were given of this and where the programme producers took a Rolls-Royce car one day and a Mini car the next? The Rolls-Royce was at no point brought to book by the authorities, but the Mini was brought to book the first time it infringed the law. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the television authorities if he can have a look at the programme, if he did not see it?

Mr. Woodhouse: That programme was, in fact, the source of the evidence which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) sent to me.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Under-Secretary ask the television authorities from where they got the evidence?

Mr. Woodhouse: That is hardly necessary, because it was perfectly obvious where the photographs were taken.

Public Disturbances (Palace of Westminster Area)

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many disturbances requiring police action have occurred within a one-mile radius of the Palace of Westminster within the last month.

Mr. Woodhouse: Three. Sir.

Mr. Bennett: Could my hon. Friend give any details of those three instances and with particular reference to the one we discussed earlier this afternoon, as the Opposition is particularly unhappy in view of the Gallup Poll today, I do not propose to tease them any more this afternoon?

Mr. Woodhouse: The three instances in question were: one on Sunday, 14th June, following a meeting in Trafalgar Square by the Anti-Apartheid Movement and others; secondly on Sunday morning, 21st June, when a crowd of youths assembled at a refreshment room on Waterloo Station and a dispute arose and arrests were made; and thirdly, on Wednesday, 24th June, to which reference has already been made.

Detective-Sergeant Challenor (Cases)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, when considering the compensation to be awarded to those now granted a free pardon after being wrongfully imprisoned on the evidence of Detective-Sergeant Challenor, he will bear in mind the sums already awarded in connection with the half-brick case to persons who spent little or no time in custody, and ensure that these further awards are proportionate to the former ones.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis compensation will be paid to Mr. David Silver and Mr. Lionel King, who have been granted free pardons and who suffered imprisonment as a result of conviction on evidence from Detective-Sergeant Challenor.

Mr. Brooke: I informed the House on 2nd July that I should be prepared to consider any claim for ex gratia compensation by these men. I have so far received intimation only of a claim by

Mr. King. In deciding the amount of ex gratia compensation in such a case, it is the practice to be guided by the advice of an independent assessor, in accordance with arrangements notified to the House by my predecessor on 2nd May, 1957.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the fact that Mr. King is at present without money, without a job and without a home, and that he is most anxious not to receive charity and was in prison from 25th June last year until last Thursday when he received a free pardon, will the Home Secretary make the compensation he is to receive as generous as possible to enable him to rehabilitate himself and his family?

Mr. Brooke: I think the House would wish that in this as in other cases I should put the claim before an independent assessor, someone quite independent of me, and obtain his advice.

Mr. Driberg: But will the independent assessor be aware of previous awards? Without asking the right hon. Gentleman to anticipate his final decision or the assessor's recommendation, may I ask if he will not at least agree that it would be quite contrary to justice if people detained for one night only received a substantial sum while equally innocent people detained for eight or nine months did not receive appreciably more?

Mr. Brooke: I shall certainly make available to the assessor any relevant information he might wish to have.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Will my right hon. Friend inform the aggrieved person of the decision to grant an ex gratia payment, should that decision be reached, so that the aggrieved person can submit a claim for damages and costs suffered, through my right hon. Friend to the Official Referee, in addition to any information he might submit to the Official Referee?

Mr. Brooke: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind. It is open to both these men to make claims, and one has done so. When I have appointed an independent assessor, I shall put before him the whole content of the claim that is being made to me together with any other relevant information he seeks.

L.C.C. Children's Department Staff (London Borough Posts)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will receive a deputation representing persons in the service of the children's department of the London County Council who are concerned about restriction of their opportunities to apply for posts in the service of the new London boroughs.

Mr. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his Question on 7th July.

Commonwealth Immigrants

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) how many Commonwealth immigrants were admitted by means of work vouchers during the 11 months ended 31st May, 1964; and how many dependants of immigrants were admitted during the same period; and

(2) what was the nett influx of Commonwealth immigrants during the 11 months ended 31st May, 1964, as compared with the 11 months ended 31st May, 1963.

Mr. Brooke: During the 11 months to 31st May, 1964, 26,462 Commonwealth citizens subject to immigration control under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, were admitted as holders of Ministry of Labour vouchers, and 27,531 as dependants accompanying or coming to join the head of the household. The nett inward movement from all parts of the Commonwealth during this period was 76,483. During the 11 months to 31st May, 1963, the nett inward movement was 27,159.

Mr. Pannell: In view of this tremendous increase, which represents an influx far greater than in any previous year except 1961–62, will my right hon. Friend co-operate with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to ensure that all applications for vouchers are suspended for the time being and that vouchers are issued only for those who have jobs to come to until the present situation is under control?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I would not say that the present situation was not under control. In fact, unemployment

among Commonwealth citizens is only one-third what it was when the control was introduced. The comparison between 1962–63 and 1963–64 is not an absolutely straight one, because there was an almost complete drying-up of immigration for some months after the Act had begun to operate.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Home Secretary aware that currently 16 per cent. of the student nurses and pupil nurses in our hospitals are Commonwealth immigrants and that without their assistance it would be quite impossible to staff the hospitals of Britain?

Mr. Brooke: I think we should all be very grateful indeed to Commonwealth immigrants who are doing valuable jobs in this country.

Mr. Pannell: Is not the whole essence of the question that if they have jobs to come to they should be admitted and that therefore those to whom the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) referred have jobs and would not be affected, but that when immigrants come here without jobs great difficulties are created?

Mr. Brooke: About half of those coming now are dependants over whom the Act imposes no control. The vast majority of those who obtain vouchers are either people who have definite jobs to come to or some special skill which qualifies them to be of use to this country.

Sir T. Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend able to say what proportion of those who apply to come are actually admitted?

Mr. Brooke: Not without notice.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman convey the opinions of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) to the representatives attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?

Mr. Brooke: I think that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and the Commonwealth Governments generally realise that it was necessary for us to impose a control and that we have administered it wisely and well.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Do the figures which my right hon. Friend has given for the


last 12 months represent an inflow which is exceptional in some ways? If not, does he realise that an annual net inflow of that character would in ten years give us an addition of nearly one million to the coloured population of the country?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend may be under a misapprehension. I was giving figures of the total Commonwealth inflow, not the coloured Commonwealth inflow.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the future operation of this Act being considered by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?

Mr. Brooke: That is a question not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make an official visit to the constituency of West Ham, North, on 27th July, in view of the fact that he will be in east London on that date.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I regret that my programme for 27th July is already full up and I am therefore unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation, but I am glad he recognises the value of these meetings.

Mr. Lewis: I, too, am sorry that the Prime Minister cannot find time to come. I agree with him that it would appear that no good would be done either to him or to his party if he were to come.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should not be too sure. I might come some time. He had better look out.

Mr. H. Wilson: As one who recognises the value of these meetings, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he knows how keenly his visit to the Liverpool area is anticipated, particularly since he has chosen the period of the annual holiday at Liverpool in which to come?

The Prime Minister: I shall be very surprised if there are not plenty of people present to meet me.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not the question of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and the fact that

he has to be supported by the Leader of the Opposition reveal their very great nervousness at the mounting popular support for the Conservative Party, led by my right hon. Friend, and the great success of his tours to meet the British people?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no duty of the Prime Minister to express quasi-medical opinions about a state of nerves.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Prime Minister aware that people in the Exchange Division of Liverpool very much resent his refusal to meet me when he visits my constituency or to see some of the shocking conditions under which people have had to live during the period of office of this Government? In view of the fact that he has refused to do so, may I tell him that I hope he gets a very warm reception in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: I shall look forward to the warm reception, which is what I have had everywhere. I cannot go everywhere, of course, in one day.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order. May I raise with you again, Mr. Speaker, a question which I raised with you on Tuesday? I apologise to you and the House that I have to raise it again, but it concerns the increasing transfer of Questions addressed to the Prime Minister to some of his colleagues.
According to Erskine May, it is possible for Questions to be redirected, but the assumption in Erskine May is that there was some confusion in the assessment of departmental responsibility when the original Question was put down, and Erskine May could not have anticipated the new situation which has arisen in the last few years in which the Prime Minister is taking a groater direct interest in matters of policy and is taking personal responsibility on these subjects in speeches in the country.
It is my submission to you that the Prime Minister should be accountable to the House of Commons as well as being accountable to interviewers on television. As you will have seen, there is only one Question today on the Order Paper to the Prime Minister which has, in fact, stayed there and remained addressed to


him. Although the Table had accepted five or six further Questions, all those Questions have been transferred elsewhere.
Is it in order, in particular, for the Prime Minister to run away from his responsibilities in regard to our relations with Spain? I refer, in particular, to Question No. 69 on the Order Paper, addressed to the Secretary of State for Defence. This was originally put down to the Prime Minister, as it is clearly his responsibility to co-ordinate the actions of Ministers. How is it possible for the Secretary of State for Defence, unless he has been appointed Deputy Prime Minister, to co-ordinate the actions of the Foreign Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers in regard to our relations with Spain?
May I also refer you to the fact that a number of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) put down responsible and serious Questions to the Prime Minister for answer today which have all been transferred? I believe that this matter is of some constitutional importance and it is of interest to back bench Members on both sides of the House. I ask you whether you would consider, without necessarily replying today, how the rights of back bench Members can be protected in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: That is not the point of order. It is not a matter about which I can help the House and, for that reason, it is no good raising it with me. As the House knows, this is a matter of complaint very often, and that has resulted in a mass of precedents by my predecessors which all say, in effect, the same thing, which is what I had to say on Tuesday: I cannot accept any responsibility for the transfer of Questions, I have no power to prevent it and, therefore, it does not raise a point of order.
If hon. Members want authority for this statement they will find two good samples from my predecessors in column 1242 of 18th February, 1953 and column 869 of 27th July, 1953. I do not think that I will cite them to the House, because they are of a familiar type. It

is not a matter about which the Chair can help the House.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would it be a point for you, Mr. Speaker, if a Question were transferred from the Prime Minister to another Minister which would have been out of order had it been put down to that Minister in the first place?

Mr. Speaker: That might arise if objection were taken to the Question being in order in any circumstances. I follow the point which the right hon. Gentleman makes. I should have to decide whether the Question was in order in the circumstances in which it appeared before me—irrespective of whether it arrived at its destination from Minister B or stayed with Minister A.

Mr. Shinwell: May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we submit our Questions to the Clerk at the Table? On this occasion the Questions were addressed to the Prime Minister. Surely in those circumstances the Clerk at the Table is in a position to say whether the Questions are properly addressed to the Prime Minister, or should be addressed to some other Minister.
To take an example, if I submitted a Question to the Clerk which dealt with the subject of housing, he would immediately direct my attention to the fact that it should be submitted to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. If I submit a Question addressed to the Prime Minister, surely the Clerks are in a position to inform we whether it is properly addressed to the Minister responsible. Does the matter not, therefore, to some extent, come within your responsibility?

Mr. Speaker: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the practice of transfer is very well established and of long standing. No doubt if the Clerks seeking to help the right hon. Gentleman saw an obvious instance of the kind which he has been discussing, they might say, "Would it not be better to start this off with Minister X or Minister Y?". But transfer is effected on an intimation from the Departments which are acting for Ministers, and we could


not undertake responsibility for censoring them in any way. I am sorry, but it cannot be done.

Mr. Lee: Would it fall within your province, Mr. Speaker, in the case of a Question which I put down to the Prime Minister last week in which I asked whether he would instruct other Ministers? Obviously, only the Prime Mnster can do that. But it did not prevent him from transferring it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Speaker: As I have indicated, transfer is not a matter within my responsibility.

Mr. Swingler: May I correct an impression which my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) may have inadvertently given? One of the Questions to which he referred is my Question No. 68, which was originally and properly put down to the Prime Minister two or three days ago. Yesterday, the Prime Minister transferred it to the Secretary of State for Defence, presumably on the ground that the leakage probably took place from that Department.
Yesterday I protested, and this morning I received a letter from the Prime Minister in which he has agreed to transfer the Question back to himself. With the agreement of the Table it will be transferred to next Tuesday, and the Prime Minister will answer it.
I do not know what lesson is to be drawn from this. It may be the lesson that if all hon. Members will forward a letter to the Prime Minister, making a special request, they may be able to get some of their Questions transferred back.

Mr. Speaker: The only lesson for me seems to be how very wise I am not to accept responsibility for transfers.

Mr. Callaghan: While accepting that you have no responsibility for the transferring of Questions, Mr. Speaker, the Table Office has a mechanical responsibility in connection with transfers—mechanical in the sense that it must record the transfer from the Prime Minister to another Minister. May we ask you to inquire from the Table Office, and to inform the House, how many Questions

have been transferred by the Prime Minister during the last week or two, how many are intended to be transferred and how many requests have been made to the Table Office in this connection?

Mr. Speaker: The question must be to me. If it is a question to me it must be treated as a Private Notice Question.

Mr. Wigg: Is it not true that our procedure normally works quite well, but we have reached a point in the last few days where the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence obviously want to "dodge the column". Is it not a fact—

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to be addressing me already on a point of order. I cannot receive two at once.

Mr. Wigg: My point of order is that our long-established practices have seemed to work perfectly well up to the last few days when we found that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, for their own political reasons, have sought to "dodge the column".

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make speeches about it. Let him develop his point of order if he likes, but not speeches.

Mr. Callaghan: May I take it, Mr. Speaker, that you would be willing to answer a Private Notice Question on how many Questions were transferred by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I did not say that I would be willing to answer a Private Notice Question, but if it is submitted to me I will consider it.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. This has to do with Questions and is not about the transferring of Questions. May I ask whether hon. Members have any protection from Ministers who are not answering Questions when, according to the Order Paper, they should be answering them? I ask you this because I have had two letters from Ministers.
The first concerns a Question which I put down to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. This letter I received at approximately six o'clock


last night, saying that he was very sorry not to have been able to answer my Question.
The second letter is from the Minister of Transport, to whose Ministry a Question which I had addressed to the Ministry of Agriculture had been transferred. He says that he is very sorry that although the Question has been transferred to him for answer next Monday he will not be able to answer until next Wednesday.
Have not hon. Members some sort of protection? Are they not entitled to expect an Answer according to the timetable of the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: This is an instance I would know nothing about. I cannot possibly do anything from the position of the Chair about that. If the hon. Member has objection about what happened, the issue is between him and the Minister.

Mr. W. Hamilton: May I pursue your point with reference to what was last mentioned before you answered my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow)? I have already submitted Questions to the Table asking the Prime Minister if he will say how many Questions have been put down to him for Oral Answer during the last six months and how many of these have been subsequently transferred to other Ministers.
It would seem to me that that is quite clearly a Question which only the Prime Minister can answer. It may well be—and I have not yet been out to the Table Office to see why the card has been sent to me—that the Question only requires amendment, but if it means withdrawal of the Question, does not this raise a very substantial point which comes within your purview as protector of the ordinary back benchers of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I try not to neglect any of my duties, but one of them is not to rule upon hypothetical situations.

Mr. Mitchison: Would you allow the Leader of the House to tell us whether he is willing to refer this question to the Committee on Procedure? It seems to me to be one of general interest and proper for that Committee.

Mr. Speaker: We had better deal with it in this way—what has been said will have been heard. It is desirable that we should get on with the business.

Mr. Ross: Surely there is a relatively easy way out—that instead of a Question being transferred to another Minister the Prime Minister should be transferred to another place.

Mr. Speaker: That appears to be a slightly disorderly question of order. Mr. Harold Wilson. Business question.

Miss Bacon: On a point of order. This is on another question. You will recall that yesterday I sought to ask a Private Notice Question of the Home Secretary with reference to his apology to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the de Courcy affair. Two things will be noted. The first is that today is probably the last time on which the Home Secretary will be answering Oral Questions in this Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "The last time ever."] The proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal were not made known until too late on Tuesday afternoon to put down a Question for today. While you did not give your reason why I was not allowed to ask the Private Notice Question, I assume that it was probably because my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) had an allied Question, which is Question No. 56 on today's Order Paper.
In view of the seriousness of this position and the serious state of affairs arising out of the apology by the Home Secretary, may I ask whether, if the right hon. Gentleman asks permission to answer Question No. 56 orally, you will give him permission?

Mr. Speaker: I can only say that I have not received any such request. That is the limit to which I am entitled to go.

Mr. Fletcher: Further to the point of order.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: It is not a point of order.

Mr. Fletcher: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it not a serious matter when the Home Secretary is rebuked by the Court of Criminal Appeal for a matter for which he is answerable to the House, namely, the proper control of a prisoner, and he then tenders


an apology to the Court of Criminal Appeal? Would it not be in accordance with precedent if the right hon. Gentleman took the earliest opportunity of giving an explanation to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that gives rise to a point of order. Mr. Harold Wilson. Business question.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has said, may I say that my Question appeared on the Order Paper only through the customary courtesy and helpfulness of the Table Office, who allowed it to be put down as soon as it was in order and not before? May I, with great respect, submit to you that there is at least one precedent during your own tenure of the Chair for your taking the initiative in indicating to a Minister in a case such as this that you would be prepared to allow him to answer a Question orally, even though he had not given you previous notice of his wish to do so?

Mr. Speaker: If I did that I must have done it in error and I do not wish to repeat it.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to this point of order. Could you give some advice and guidance to the House on this question? Repeatedly, when hon. Members on both sides of the House seek to table a Private Notice Question they are ruled out on the ground that there is a Question on the Order Paper.
It would be useful to the House to know whether such a rule is mandatory on you or discretionary. In this case the Home Secretary's responsibility is very clearly involved. He has then to go to a court outside and, in the most grovelling manner, apologise for his incompetence, and we are not able to put what would have been a normal Private Notice Question on such an issue because there is already a Question on the Order Paper to which, when it comes up, the Home Secretary does not even trouble to reply.
In those circumstances, could we be told whether you have any discretion to allow a Private Notice Question if there is a Question on the Order Paper and there is reason to think that the Minister concerned is not going to answer it?

Mr. Speaker: I must say to avoid any confusion that it is not right, with respect, to assume the reasons for which a Private Notice Question was disallowed. That is a matter which we do not state. The rule about the other thing is stated on page 362 of the current edition of Erskine May in these terms:
A question cannot be asked by private notice in order to anticipate a question of which notice has been given. The latter must first be withdrawn; withdrawal becomes effective on publication of an Order Paper no longer containing the question.
That practice is mandatory on me.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not the whole question be solved much earlier if there were a little co-operation and coordination between the Front Bench and the back benches opposite?

Mr. Speaker: That seems to make it more imperative to get on with the business question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business of the House for next week, and on what day next week the Home Secretary will make his statement on the de Courcy affair?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 13TH JULY—Debate on Accommodation.
TUESDAY, 14TH JULY—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, a debate on Northern Ireland. Motion on the Summer Time Order.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH JULY—Second Reading of the Shipping Contracts and Commercial Documents Bill, and of the British North America Bill.
Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Resale Prices Bill.

Motions on the White Fish and Herring Subsidies Schemes and Order, and on the Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation.

THURSDAY, 16TH JULY—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on Problems of the North-East until seven o'clock, and afterwards on London Housing.

FRIDAY, 17TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Shipping Contracts and Commercial Documents Bill, of the Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Bill [Lords], and of the British North America Bill.

MONDAY, 20TH JULY—The proposed business will be: Supply [24th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Mr. Wilson: Since we have such a wealth of tremendously important legislation next week, will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether he will take the opportunity of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference to discuss with the Prime Minister of Canada whether it would possible to make new arrangements so that the time of this House is not taken up by legislating on British North American affairs, for example, having to give one of the most senior Commonwealth countries authority to establish contributory pensions? Could this matter be discussed with the Prime Minister of Canada while he is here?
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that, on the last four Thursdays, we have raised with him the question of a statement from the Minister of Aviation about the VC 10s and, week after week, for four weeks running, we have been put off. Now that not only the Minister's intentions but Cabinet decisions, everything that the Minister has said in the Cabinet and out of the Cabinet, and everything else has leaked into almost every newspaper, when can the House of Commons be told what someone seems to be willing to impart to all the Press?

Mr. Lloyd: On the first question the right hon. Gentleman asks, I think that we were both present at the time when that matter was raised informally. In fact, it has not taken very much of the time of the House on previous occasions, although I agree that it is, perhaps, a matter which should be discussed.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second question, I hope very much that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to make this statement next week.

Sir H. Linstead: My right hon. and learned Friend will, no doubt, have been on the Order Paper the Motion signed

by hon. Members on both sides asking for the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to inquire into the future organisation and development of the Library. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what possibility there is of the House being able to express an opinion on the Motion?

[This this House is of the opinion that a reference and research library of the highest quality is essential to Members in the performance of their parliamentary duties; that the functions of the Library should be redefined, with particular reference to the provision of research and statistical services, the qualifications and experience of the specialist staff required and to the means of assuring to the staff a career which will attract and retain highly qualified men and women; that the method of ensuring that the Library under the direction of Mr. Speaker is responsive to the needs and wishes of the House might also usefully be reexamined and that for these reasons it is desirable that the House should appoint at an early date a Select Committee to inquire into these and all other relative considerations and to report to the House the measures necessary to secure such changes as may be thought desirable]

Mr. Lloyd: It is not for me to rule on what would be in order in the debate next Monday, but I should have thought that the question of the Library, its accommodation and possible extension, could be raised.
As regards the purport of the Motion itself, I think that the course suggested by my hon. Friend and others who signed it would be a wise one for the House to take.

Mr. Woodburn: For the convenience of hon. Members, could the Leader of the House say when the Session is to end, when this Parliament is to end, and when the General Election will be held?

Mr. Lloyd: The date of the election has a limit fixed by Statute. The possible date for the Summer Recess depends upon the progress we make with the business of the House.

Mr. Hastings: Reverting to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. and learned Friend do his best to elucidate what was


meant by senior and junior Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on business.

Mr. Swingler: Has the Leader of the House seen the Motion in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends about the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry into the premature disclosure of information about negotiations with Spain? Is he aware that the Prime Minister will be answering a Question on this subject, although he attempted to "pass the buck" to the Minister of Defence, as we see from today's Order Paper? Does he realise that the Prime Minister may decide to take over this Motion if the Government take the reasonable course and agree that there should be a thorough inquiry into how and why this premature disclosure took place? Will the Leader of the House, therefore, make preliminary arrangements for a debate on the Motion?

[That it is expedient to establish a tribunal for inquiring into a definte matter of urgent public importance, viz., the premature disclosure of information on or about 8th June concerning negotiations with the Government of Spain.]

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman had better await the answer to the Question. I think that it would be helpful if he would send in any evidence which he has about it.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there are at least some hon. Members who do not share the view put just now by the Leader of the Opposition about the trifling claim on our time made by the British North America Act, and who would be very sorry to see any change in this traditional and courteous constitutional connection between Canada and this country?

Mr. Bellenger: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the apparent leakage of information regarding the VC10s and B.O.A.C. Yesterday, the Minister of Aviation was strongly pressed to give an answer on this question, and he said that he would make a statement at an early date. Will the Leader of the House investigate the sources of this leak because, if we are to

have this business of Ministers refusing to give information to the House and then the information appearing in our evening newspapers, the House will be brought into contempt?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall see that what the right hon. Gentleman says is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. N. Pannell: Now that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act has been in operation for just over two years, could my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on this most important matter before the Houses rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Lloyd: We could not find time next week.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Leader of the House seeking to use his authority to punish Scottish Opposition Members by insisting upon taking the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of the Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Bill on Friday? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Scottish Members are among the most faithful attenders in the House, that they look after their business very assiduously and that they normally have business in their constituencies on a Friday? Will he have this matter looked into with a view to taking the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill on one of the other days during the week?

Mr. Lloyd: I have no desire whatever to punish Scottish Members, but I must ask them to help a little next Friday. There is quite a lot of business to do, and I thought that the Bill was generally welcomed.

The Earl of Dalkeith: As there is not likely to be much Parliamentary time left to us before the General Election, and the party which hopes that it has a claim to form the alternative Government changes its mind so frequently on the subject of defence, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider allotting a certain amount of time each week during the period remaining to us so that we may keep abreast of the latest changes in the thinking of right hon. and hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall bear my noble Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mrs. Butler: Since the order of Questions makes it impossible for many Ministers to answer important Questions orally before the end of the Session, will the Government make available half a day for Questions so that each Minister could answer orally in turn for, say, 15 minutes, or, alternatively, will they consider extending Question Time in the last week before the Recess for 15 minutes or half an hour so that there would be additional time for Questions to be answered on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Lloyd: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, though I myself think that much the best solution to the problem of not getting through enough Questions would be to curtail the length of supplementary questions.
Her suggestion for half a day or for a prolonged Question Time, say a quarter of an hour, is one which would require further consideration and, of course, discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find a way for the House to discuss the Motion which has been signed by at least 50 of my hon. Friends concerning the grievances of the North British Locomotive Company's shareholders, who include two constituents of mine?

[That this House is of the opinion that, having regard to the fact that the Chairman of North British Locomotive Company was (as a result of loan arrangements) in October 1959 a Government nominee when he stated that the assets of the Company were sufficient to repay the preference capital and leave £375,592 for the equity shareholdings and that at subsequent meetings in 1960 and 1961 the Government nominee Chairman gave an optimistic impression of the Company's prospects causing new investors to come in, the Government is under a moral obligation to compensate the stockholders following the decision in April 1962 by the Government Chairman to liquidate the Company so that the Government recovered their investment while the shareholders lost over £1,000,000; and that it was unjust for the Government to appropriate the tax credits which would otherwise have been available for distribution among the shareholders who recovered nothing in the liquidation.]

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that I can promise any Government time for consideration of that Motion, but I will examine the possibility.

Sir B. Janner: Will the Leader of the House give fresh consideration to the matter raised by me last week, when I pointed out that 106 hon. Members, including myself, had put a Motion on the Order Paper designed to see that the victims of Nazi persecution who had not been able to submit their claims up to October, 1953, shall have an opportunity of submitting them to the Federal German authorities now? Will he give the House an opportunity to debate that Motion, in view of the very serious nature of the position and the fact that people who should be entitled to compensation, are dying, coupled with the fact that a final statute is to be passed by the Federal German Government in the near future on these matters?

[That this House, noting the final amending law in respect of restitution and compensation to the victims of the Nazis is now under consideration by the Federal German Parliament, expresses the hope that provision will be made for the inclusion on equal terms of entitlement to compensation of the thousands of victims who through no fault of their own and by the application of arbitrary time limits for claims are excluded under the present law, and is encouraged in this hope by the fact that such inclusion and more liberal grants of compensation generally would not constitute a significant burden on the continued thriving economy of West Germany.]

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman had a word with me about this matter and that has enabled me to make some inquiries. I understand that the new Federal German legislation contains provision for a hardship fund designed to cover the people in the category to whom he refers. I do not think that it would be altogether appropriate for us to debate German domestic legislation, but I will see that the views of the hon. Member are brought to the attention of those in authority.

Mr. W. Yates: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my


hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell):

[That this House, in view of the continued presence of large numbers of Egyptian forces in the Yemen, in contravention of the Security Council resolution of 11th June, 1963, and of the increasing threat to international security and to British life and other interests in the Middle East, urges Her Majesty's Government to take effective measures to secure the withdrawal of Egyptian invasion forces.]

and the Motion standing in my name:

[That this House, realising the need to promote good relations in Aden for joint security between the Services and the people of this country with the inhabitants of South-West Arabia, now invites the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to provide the evidence and his statement of accusations of bribery reported at column 217 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 7th July, 1964, that the Sultan of Fadhli, by offer of bribes tried to induce other delegates to break up the conference, and further requests him to state the source of the funds for the alleged bribe, or withdraw his accusation and imputations by innuendo against another unspecified State.]

as well as the White Paper on the Conference on South-West Arabia?

Does he realise that people are beginning to wonder whether all our troubles in the Middle East are solely due to the policies of President Nasser? In view of reports about arms deals by Her Majesty's Government with Royalists in the Yemen, does he not think this a subject matter which the House should debate very shortly?

Mr. Lloyd: I should have thought that my hon. Friend would wish to put down a Question on that subject.

Mr. Wigg: As the Leader of the House told my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) that he should supply him with evidence about the leak on the Spanish arms business, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the OFFICIAL REPORT for 15th June, in which the Foreign Secretary told the House that there had been a disclosure of information? Is he further aware that the

Daily Express, which splashed the original story all over its front page, the next day hid away on page 10 a palpable untruth, when it blamed the Americans for the disclosure?
Is it not obvious that, for reasons best known to themselves, Her Majesty's Government have sought to hide behind their own incompetence? Is it not time, in the public interest—not in the interest of the Tory Party—that the facts were established on the basis of evidence before a judge of the High Court?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that is a question which arises on the business for next week. I have already suggested to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) that he should await the Answer of the Prime Minister to his Question.

Mr. Robert Cooke: With regard to Monday's business, will my right hon. and learned Friend draw the attention of hon. Members to certain architectural drawings which have just been displayed in the Library and which may go some way to explaining the Accommodation Committee's proposals?

Mr. Lloyd: I hope that hon. Members present will have taken note of what my hon. Friend says and that other hon. Members will read his remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On Thursday's business, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, rather vaguely, that the debate would be about the North-East, did he mean the north-east of Scotland? Is he aware that a debate on that subject is long overdue?

Mr. Lloyd: If there is any allegation of vagueness, that is a matter the hon. and learned Member must raise with his right hon. and hon. Friends, because the debate will take place on an Opposition day. They chose the subject.

Mr. Fell: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's implied statement in answer to an earlier question—that unless we finish our business we might be kept here during the Summer Recess—will he give an assurance that we will not be kept here during the Recess to discuss the Burton upon Trent Order, 1964?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that even I could keep my hon. Friend here. The question was when the Recess would begin.

Mr. H. Hynd: It has been stated that the Minister of Aviation would make a statement on the issue we all have in mind concerning him—the VC 10s—but since there was a prior statement to the effect that we would have a full debate on the Report of the Select Committee, when will that debate take place?

Mr. Lloyd: Not next week, but there are opportunities for a debate, of which the hon. Member will be aware.

Mr. M. Foot: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking with Ministers about the statements they are to make next week, will he arrange for us to have at least one direct leak to this House and also arrange for us to have one apology from the Home Secretary?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Ross: Concerning Friday's business and the Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Bill, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Secretary of State, who so far has not found it possible or convenient to attend a single Committee discussion on any Scottish Bill, will be in his place next Friday?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly see that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. A. Lewis: Further to the remarks that have been made about the various leaks that have occurred, and which we are continually getting, is the Leader of the House aware that when one talks to Lobby correspondents one finds that they can invariably give information about things 24 hours before details of them appear in the Press, or are given on the Floor of the House?
Is he aware that we have been told that there is to be an announcement made about an increase in old-age pensions? Will he give an assurance that neither next week nor at any time during this Session any such statement will be made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that is, unless he is prepared to confirm that an announcement is to be made to the effect that retirement pensions are to be increased?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that, so far as I am aware, not next week.

Mr. Lipton: Has the Leader of the House taken note of the pledge which was made by the Home Secretary last night, and the effect that it will probably have on the forthcoming business of the House? Is he aware that the Home Secretary said that he would do his best to introduce an amending Regulation in this Parliament to deal with the problem of police widows' compensation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now convert that into a specific Government undertaking: that an amending Regulation will be placed before the House before the end of this Session?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. I do not think that I have anything to add to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday. I heard what he said, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who thought that it was satisfactory. I hope that we shall get the preliminary steps. Certain steps must be taken first to seek agreement, and if that agreement is reached we shall certainly find time for that Regulation.

Mr. H. Wilson: We have been told repeatedly that there will be a Measure relating to Malta before the House rises for the Summer Recess. Since the House will probably feel that no such Measure should be introduced until there is general agreement among the various communities and parties in Malta about the fairness of elections, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now say whether it is still his intention to introduce legislation relating to Malta before the end of this month?

Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add to what has already been said.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will there be any time restriction on the debate on Northern Ireland on Tuesday?

Mr. Lloyd: The normal restriction under the Standing Order.

Mr. Swingler: Before we have a debate on the tribunal of inquiry into the leak to the Daily Express in relation to the Spanish negotiations, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Foreign


Secretary what was the basis of his assertion on 15th June that there was a premature disclosure, when the Foreign Secretary said to the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not, in our own interests, get so far away from the business as that, else business questions become interminable.

Mr. Swingler: The Leader of the House challenged me, Mr. Speaker, to produce evidence of why I was asking him for a debate on this subject. The Motion to which I was referring is based on the fact that on 15th June the Foreign Sectary asserted in the House that there had been a premature disclosure about the Spanish negotiations. Surely it is fair for me to ask the Leader of the House to consult with his colleague who is vitally concerned in these negotiations and to ask him for the evidence that is the basis for saying that we require a tribunal to inquire into this matter.

Mr. Speaker: From the point of view of business I should have thought that a quotation of what the Foreign Secretary has said was sufficient. However, the point has been made.

Mr. Wigg: Since we can confidently look forward to the right hon. and learned Gentleman finding time in the life of this Parliament for an inquiry and the setting up of a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, can we in the meantime dismiss any further claims by the Government about the sale of ships to Spain on the ground that what happened was this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. My plea that we should confine ourselves to business does not exclude any hon. Member or myself. We must, in the common interest, keep to business.

Mr. Wigg: We asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman earlier whether he would find time, if not next week, for a debate. He has given us some encouragement. We have helped him by supplying him with the evidence. I note the lack of enthusiasm on his part and that of other hon. Members opposite for a debate. May we take it that what is happening is that the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: No. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is not, in my view, business.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wigg rose—

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. A. Lewis: As the Leader of the House said that there will not be a statement next week on the question of increased pensions, may we have one as soon as possible and an assurance from him that it will not be leaked to the Press before it is made on the Floor of the House? If a statement cannot be made next week, will the right hon. and learned gentleman try to ensure that it is made the week after, so that we may have a chance to debate it before the House rises?

Mr. Lloyd: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Wigg: Will the Leader of the House find time next week, in the interest, I understand, of hon. Members opposite, for a debate on the sale of ships to Spain? Let us have the truth. All that I want to do is to ensure that the House and the public understand what happened. I believe—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked for a debate. That is the totality of what I regard as coming within business.

Mr. Lloyd: In view of what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) says, he should persuade his right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] May I reply? The hon. Gentleman would be wise to try to persuade his right hon. Friend to choose this topic for a Supply Day.

Mr. Wigg: This is another example of evasion. I want the facts. My hon. Friends and myself put on the Order Paper a Motion asking for an inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: This is quite out of order and will, in the end, be most inconvenient for the House, because, by and large, we like to discuss business. However, if this occasion is abused we shall have to stop allowing such freedom. It is not in the interests of the House.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the somewhat incomplete reply which he gave to


my question on the subject of police widows' compensation will be received with some dissatisfaction by—

Mr. Speaker: That is another instance of what should not be done on business.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not clear to the Leader of the House that the Government should find time next week to explain their position and all this talk about premature disclosure by the Foreign Secretary to the House? Have the Government no responsibility to explain what has happened, or do they merely want to make electioneering propaganda out of this?

Mr. Lloyd: What I said was that there was no time for such a debate next week.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the fact that there remain on the Order Paper a number of Private Members' Bills from hon. Members on both sides of the House which Members think important, and the fact that Government legislation does not seem to be all that pressing, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider finding time to discuss some of these Bills in the last week before the Recess instead of having the usual day of Adjournment debates?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure what would be the repercussions of that suggestion, but I will certainly consider it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: No. I wish to bring business questions to an end.

Mr. M. Foot: On the question of Spain, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by many of his hon. Friends? Can he explain why none of them has requested him to find time for a debate on the subject, and can—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an absurdity. I wish to draw hon. Members' attention to this. It is slightly difficult for the Chair to control this matter because, out of courtesy and duty, it has to listen to what the hon. Member concerned is seeking to say before putting a stop to the question. Therefore, some endeavour is required by hon. Members, in addition to myself,

to see that these occasions are not abused, and I expect help in the matter.

Mr. Foot: I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, were suggesting that I was abusing the procedures of the House in putting that question.

Mr. Speaker: I did not do that. I am explaining to the hon. Gentleman, if it be necessary, that it can be no part of the duty of the Leader of the House to explain why he has not received an application for a debate from a given Member. Unless I misheard him, that was what the hon. Member was asking.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for indicating that you were not saying that I was abusing the procedures of the House. I should have thought it perfectly proper for an hon. Member to ask the Leader of the House whether he was aware that a Motion had been tabled by many of his hon. Friends on the matter which we were discussing and why he had not received representations for a debate in the House on that Motion. I should have thought, with great respect, that nothing could have been more in order that that. The questions on Spain could have been greatly abbreviated if the Leader of the House had been prepared to give direct answers at the beginning. So many questions have been put to him because he refused to answer in the first place.

Mr. Speaker: Do not let us get into dispute or confusion. If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I freely apologise to him. I thought that he was asking the Leader of the House why it was that his hon. Friends whose names are to the Motion had not made application to him for a debate. That was clearly wrong.

Mr. A. Lewis: On Tuesday's business, as it affects only Northern Ireland, which is just a part of Great Britain, whereas the question of Spain affects the whole of Great Britain—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not hear any more on that topic.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Lewis rose—

Mr. Speaker: No. I will hear no more.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I was called by you, Mr. Speaker, to ask a question on next week's business. I said that Tuesday's business was to do with Northern Ireland, and I was going on to ask whether that business could be switched. Surely that would be in order. I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he can switch Tuesday's business and whether, in its place, we could have a debate on something more important. Surely if you call me, Mr. Speaker, as you did, I should be allowed to put that question.

Mr. Speaker: When I heard what the hon. Member was urging, it amounted to a further request for a debate about the Spanish business. In my view, we have had enough questions about that.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. Is there not a very well known precedent when the late Mr. T. P. O'Connor used the name "Uganda" whenever he meant "Ireland"? On the basis of that precedent, would it not be a good idea next week for hon. Members to use "Ireland" whenever they mean "Spain"?

Mr. Speaker: That is bordering on the hypothetical. We must get on.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Matter of Rural Development in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

SPRAY IRRIGATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is disappointed that he cannot himself be here to introduce the Bill. The Second Reading, unfortunately, clashes with a commitment for him to be host at the opening of an international conference in Edinburgh; and, in this connection, I am sure that all hon. Members of Scottish constituencies are glad that the European Free Trade Association—E.F.T.A.—like other international bodies, has recognised the advantages of Edinburgh as a centre for international conferences.
This Bill is a modest Measure to provide powers to deal with what may increasingly become a problem in certain parts of Scotland. The problem arises from a development of spray irrigation as a technique in fanning. This method of irrigation is a valuable one which can substantially improve the quality and production of crops, but it can involve the use of large quantities of water and, unlike most other uses of river water, very little finds its way back to the stream.
While we are fortunate, in general, in Scotland in having abundant supplies of water, there are areas, particularly in the East of Scotland, where the use of spray irrigation could seriously affect the quantities of water left in rivers and streams. Such reduction of the normal flows can create problems, not only of water conservation but of pollution, since purification measures often entail the dilution to the safe proportions of effluents.
In passing, it might be helpful if I pointed out that the word "stream" is used frequently in the Bill, and that under the relevant definition this term covers any river or other watercourse.
While the Government favour the use of spray irrigation in appropriate circumstances, because of its benefits to agriculture, we recognise that some control and co-ordination is necessary in view of the recent increase in popularity of this method, and its possible


spread in the future. The Bill seeks to provide a sensible and flexible form of control to deal with the problems that may arise from the development of this form of irrigation. My right hon. Friend received a unanimous recommendation from the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee to the effect that there should be powers to control the abstraction of water for spray irrigation in any area where this was shown to have been necessary. The Government have accepted this advice.
I would remind the House that the Advisory Committee was constituted in 1956 under the terms of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, and the Committee quite properly carried out a review of the development of spray irrigation. The Committee covers a wide range of interests—local authorities which have statutory duties for water and sewerage, agriculture, fisheries, industry and amenity. The Committee's good work in encouraging improvement of conditions in Scottish rivers is widely appreciated, especially by my right hon. Friend.
I have mentioned that there is a direct link between the abstraction of water and river purification. One important principle of purification is that all discharges of effluent into rivers and streams should be of such quality that the available volume of water will ensure their dilution and thus prevent pollution. The aim of the river purification boards, which operate under the 1951 Act, is to raise standards of sewage purification and effluent treatment. The boards have done much excellent work to this end, but the need for ample river flows for proper dilution of some effluents is still most important.
I want now to turn to the legal position of those who take water from rivers or streams for spray irrigation purposes. The position is that a riparian proprietor has a right at common law to take water for what are known as the primary uses, namely, drink for man and beast and water for ordinary domestic purposes. This has been the law for a long time, but it is open to doubt whether the abstraction of large quantities of water for spray irrigation is within the common law, and it would certainly be unwise to suppose that a farmer today is beyond reasonable challenge at law if he

is doing this. Fortunately, there are many Scottish rivers which have such an abundant flow of water, and such a relatively low amount of pollution, that the development of spray irrigation is unlikely to create any problems for other interests.
Certainly, there is no need at present to visualise control being exercised on a grand scale throughout Scotland. Indeed, the Bill does not impose such overall control. What it does is to make it possible for the question of control over a particular area to be examined carefully in the light of all the interests concerned. If it is found that control over that particular area is necessary, action can be taken accordingly.
I am glad to say that the principles of the Bill have been widely welcomed. They have been discussed with the National Farmers' Union and the Scottish Landowners' Federation, which have both accepted the need for this limited form of control where circumstances call for it. My right hon. Friend accepts the view of these bodies that when a control order is made for any area, as proposed in the Bill, the river purification board concerned should have added agricultural representation. He would be able to provide for this under the terms of the 1951 Act.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: But does the Under-Secretary appreciate that the decision to strengthen the landowners' and farmers' interests on these purification boards under the 1951 Act—not under this Bill at all—when a control order has been made, will be very greatly resented, because a control order will be made very largely in the interests of the purity of the river, and the hon. Gentleman is proposing to load the river purification board with persons who themselves have an interest in increasing the impurity of the river?

Mr. Campbell: I understand the point that there might be a danger of one interest receiving increasing weight on the board, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the intention that all the interests should have a voice in these matters; and that when a question like this which, as the hon. Gentleman says, particularly affects agriculture, adds to the duties of the board, it is open to the Secretary of State to add agricultural


members to the board. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I can assure him that the Secretary of State intends to review all the interests, and that he certainly would not have decided on this if he had thought that it would throw out the balance of interest—

Mr. E. G. Willis: This is shocking.

Mr. Campbell: Perhaps I have said enough on this point, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said—

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the Under-Secretary sure that he has dealt with what my hon. Friend has said? When the purification boards were set up, there was a suggestion about putting interests on them. The "interests" were people in manufacture, coal mines, and other things in the area, and their interest was to slow up purification because it would involve them in expenditure; in other words, it is suspected that some boards would work more quickly if it were the public interest that was being looked after instead of the interests of many of those who are pouring stuff into the rivers.

Mr. Campbell: I did understand what the hon. Member said and I have noted the point that his right hon. Friend has also made. I assure them that my right hon. Friend has no intention of disturbing the relative distribution of interest in the boards and that this was thought to be a sensible way of proceeding after a control order had been adopted by a board.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I have an interest as I have something to do with angling interests being represented on the river purification boards. Is the Under-Secretary certain that there will be complete protection against the emission of effluent from a spray irrigation plant? The water will not always be clean. It is not always used for watering a plant. Chemicals might be used to control insect life and if a seepage occurred back to the stream or river, it could result in the loss of a great deal of money spent by anglers in stocking the river, and so on. There is danger in this. Will the hon. Gentleman consider strengthening the angling representation,

which, I believe, is only one member per board?

Mr. Campbell: I know of the hon. Member's interest in angling. As he said, anglers' interests are represented on the boards. What the hon. Member has said brings out one of the main factors in the formulation of the Bill, and that is the balancing of the various interests. The whole concept of bringing in control of spray irrigation is to ensure that other interests are not adversely affected. The strength of effluents in a river, to which the hon. Member has referred, and the possibility of a large decrease in the quantity of water in a river are things that we are trying to guard against by the Bill. What the hon. Member has said about angling interests is an important factor and is certainly one of the factors behind the Bill.
Clause 1 of the Bill leaves with the river purification boards the initiative to apply for a control order, subject to the reserve power of the Secretary of State to require a board to apply. The Schedule to the Bill provides for the full processes of advertisement of the application for an order, notice of which is to be given to all bodies likely to be affected, and, if any objections are maintained, for public local inquiry. These requirements should provide safeguards for consideration of the interests involved. It will be observed that we have based the procedure in the Schedule upon the existing procedure under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, 1961. This procedure has already been considered and approved by the House and, in practice, it has been satisfactory.
Clause 2 provides for licensing control once a control order has been made. In considering the size of the maximum fine of £50 for contravention of the licensing control, one should note also the provision in Clause 6 for revocation of licences if the holder is convicted of an offence under Clause 2.
Clauses 3 to 6 govern the administration of the licensing system with the object of holding a proper balance between the interests of all concerned. Under Clause 3, the aim is to enable farmers to make their spray irrigation plans in good time. They should know


where they will stand on licences well before the period in the year for which licences will apply when their operations will be started. At the same time, there is provision for the boards to publish brief particulars of all applications received and to maintain for inspection a register of applications and of licences granted. Those wishing to object to applications will be able to follow what is happening and to make their views known.
Clause 4 makes a reasonable provision for contingencies, such as changes in tenure of land or sudden illness, which can legitimately give rise to applications out with the normal autumn period. Clauses 5 and 6 leave room for necessary changes such as transfer of licences. If applications for upward variation of licences are made under Clause 6(2), the safeguards for other interested parties in Clause 3 will apply.
Clause 7 recognises that from time to time on; must expect exceptional conditions to arise concerning rainfall and river flows. It provides for regulation of licences on an equitable basis if there is exceptional shortage of water or, more happily, such abundant supplies that suspension or relaxation of restrictions is a proper course. Circumstances can be expected to vary widely in different areas and in particular cases. The Bill accordingly aims to give a proper discretion to the boards.
We are seeking in the Bill to make reasonable powers available for use as and when local circumstances make their exercisable desirable. I hope that the Bill will commend itself to the House.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: The Under-Secretary of State, who so felicitously opened the debate on the Bill, was rather modest about it. This, after all, is the major Scottish legislation of the year. We must not underestimate its importance simply because it is not being introduced by a private Member. I hope that we will give it the importance and consideration that it merits.
What interests me is that when we started this Session in 1959–60 we were faced with a shipping breakdown. We had no ships, so the Government introduced a Bill which virtually gave us nationalised ships. Here we are, ending

these five years of glorious Tory rule with a shortage of water. One of the things which, I notice, has been said more than once by the Government spokesman in another place was that we have an abundance of water in Scotland, and that is true. But we get tremendous shortages also, because the water is not in the right place and we have not so far taken steps to ensure that the water is conserved and will be there when it is needed.
When we look at the Bill and see all its terms—licensing, permission, compulsions and controls—it reeks with all those terms that send a shudder through the breasts of the dowagers and the matrons of the Primrose League when the Prime Minister warms to his theme of Socialist terror. In fact, the Bill is sound common-sense bearing in mind the circumstances which it is designed to meet.
At certain times of the year, in particular areas in Scotland, irrespective of the spread of spray irrigation, there is a shortage of water. In many of our burghs small and large, given about a fortnight's dry weather we are in difficulty. The result is that the Government have been trying hard, but belatedly, to get regional co-operation concerning water supplies. Local authorities are ascertaining the exact costs of providing water for all the various needs. Ayr County Council has recently committed itself to a scheme costing well over £1 million to provide water and to transport it across the country for one new industry which it is determined to attract.
We can, therefore, appreciate that in such circumstances, when water is taken out of a stream considerable difficulties might well be caused to other users of water. These users of water are strictly controlled in what they take out of, and what they put into, the stream. Those who have interests in fishing know that if the level of the water is reduced, and there is no reduction in the polluting substances put into the river by agriculture and industry, then the fishing interests will suffer. We know what pollution has done to fish in the past.
We know that the level of streams and rivers falls at a particular time of the year because of lack of rainfall—and yet it is when there is no rainfall and when the level of the river is falling that the agriculturist wants to use his


expensive spray irrigation equipment. If he uses it, it may cause problems in the cleanliness and amenities of the river, and all the work of the river purification boards will go by the board.
At the moment, they have no power to do anything about it, because they have no rights in respect of the river. Yet the people who are taking water out of the river have no right to it, either. The farmer who is using organic irrigation through the main supply is paying for it. Farmers taking water out of the river or stream in respect of organic irrigation are covered by the Bill, but those taking water from the tap, from the main, are paying for it and they are excluded from the provisions. But they will be envious of the person who is exercising his privilege—I do not know whether it is a privilege, but it is certainly not a right—and is taking advantage of the present situation because no one so far has questioned his practice.
There is an increasing use of this form of irrigation, which may be applied not only to green crops, but to early potatoes, and it may leave the river in a desperate state.
As a result of this situation the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee, which, I understand, had support from the river purification boards, came to the unanimous conclusion that something had to be done. People with varried interests, faced with the practical situation, came to the conclusion that something must be done, and the Government, despite all their postures outside the House about control, realised that this was the only way to do it.
Under the Bill, anyone who wants to abstract water from the stream for spray irrigation can do so only if he has a licence. I understand that he will need a licence if he is within an area in respect of which the river purification board has applied to the Secretary of State and has been authorised to proceed on the basis of making it a control area. The Secretary of State takes this so seriously that if the board does not do so and he thinks that something should be done about it he can force the board to make the application. That is my reading of the Bill.
We have progressive farmers who have spent a lot of money in some areas, par-

ticularly in the West and in the South-East, where farmers are doing well. But they are creating this difficulty, and we can see that it will be more troublesome as time goes on. What will be their position? They will have the equipment but no guarantee that they will be able to use it. Certainly, there is less likelihood that they will be able to use it at the time when they most need it and at the time for which they bought it.
This is one of the uncertainties. Once a man starts using spray irrigation, he must keep going until natural rainfall takes over. Let us not underestimate the difficulties of those who buy the equipment and who will be faced with the uncertainties which will come with licensing, for getting a licence may be a tricky business. There will still be a limited amount which can be taken from the stream if it is within a control area, but there is no guarantee that there is a limit to the number of people who will want licences.
I was terrified by the figures given in another place by a noble Lord who mentioned a river in the South-East where, he said, there were eight pumps capable of pumping 15,000 gallons an hour and there were likely to be 20 such pumps within the foreseeable future—that is to say, 300,000 gallons an hour, free, coming out of a stream which is valuable from the point of view of others with interest in it, and a stream which, if this were allowed to continue, would be polluted, to the detriment probably of the health of man and of beast. It would also be an eyesore. The river purification board is to be given the job of sorting out those who will have a licence and those who will not and, even after they have a licence, when to limit the supply, when to increase it and when to suspend it altogether. These are considerable powers to give to a board which is not an elected Board.
Here I come to the point which the Minister made about the board. The definition of the board is laid down in Section 3 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951. The local authorities—county councils and large burghs—appoint between three-fifths and two-thirds of the members. The remainder are appointed by the Secretary of State—one-third, with the possibility of another one. Working it out arithmetically, a


reasonable size for a board will be 15, so that either nine or ten will be from the local authorities and six or five from the Secretary of State. This is the amount of leeway which is available.
The boards for each area are probably already appointed, and the five or six whom the Secretary of State can appoint and with whom he can manœuvre are appointed already on conditions that he thought fit. They are appointed to deal with such interests as agriculture, fisheries, and industry.
What scope is there for manoeuvre, or do the Government intend to change the rules? It may mean another Clause in the Bill. It is not right for Ministers to make pledges unthinkingly and without considerable consultation. This House ought certainly to have been consulted. We are talking about rural areas. Many people already on the county councils are representing agricultural interests. Indeed, it may well be that most of the boards are already over-weighted with agricultural interests. In many circumstances the people representing agricultural or county council interests will have a difficult task. Is it likely that an agriculturist sitting on a board will adjudicate in respect of licences for which he himself may be a competing applicant? If so, this is wrong.
The Secretary of State ought to think again about the pledges that he has given. Would we ever dream of handing the administration of valuable licences to people who are themselves interested? This is what we are virtually doing. The Secretary of State is to ensure that the dominating interest will be agricultural. We would never put the apportionment of public house licences in the hands of publicans. Nevertheless, we are handing the right to abstract water to people who at the moment have no right to the water, and we are guaranteeing them against any legal action arising from what they do under the licence, and all we are charging them is £5 a year. It is a valuable licence, and these people should not be handing out such licences.
There is a way out. Under the original Act, any power exercised by a river purification board can be delegated to a county council. Have the Government thought whether that is possible in this case? Indeed, the Secretary of State

will find that a statutory water authority can ask to have certain powers delegated to it. There may be some requests about these powers.
This is not a simple Bill. It is tricky. It arises from our failure to ensure that the abundance of water that we have at a certain time is conserved for use when needed. The real way out of this is to have pond storage schemes for certain farmers or groups of farmers to ensure that water is available in time of shortage. The Bill is merely a makeshift made necessary by our failure to appreciate the importance of water. I do not think the Prime Minister appreciates the importance of water, unless it is in his whisky when he is campaigning in Kinross.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: The Prime Minister may not be the great drinker of whisky that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) suggests, but if he has a little of the water of Perth, then that is at all events good peaty water.

Mr. Ross: It was not the good peaty water of Perth that the Prime Minister was drinking, according to a recent photograph. He bought his constituents beer, but he was drinking whisky.
It must be realised that in many respects this Bill is tied to the original Act, which I do not think has been properly appreciated. Take the penalties. The immediate purpose is to prevent pollution. The Bill prevents pollution just as it prevents industry or agriculture depositing in the water something which would be deleterious to it. But the standards of penalties are entirely different. The original provisions were unbalanced and favoured industry and agriculture.
The penalty under the Bill is the simple one of £50 for abtracting water without a licence, which can do tremendous damage, but the penalty for positive pollution is £200 on indictment and if the pollution persists, six months' imprisonment and a fine of £500. We might well look at this for the sake of fairness. The penalties for obstructing the river purification board in the exercise of its functions might well be higher than those for abstracting water wrongly.
I hope that the Government have noted the difficulties and will be prepared to do something about them in Committee. We have already been told when the Committee stage will be, and I take strong exception to the fact that a matter of this importance should be dealt with on a Friday and at such short notice. Most hon. Members have already fixed other engagements.
Have the Government thought any more about the £5 annual licence fee? It is a valuable right. In some circumstances it may be regarded as a derisory fee. Perhaps we should look at it with the idea of making the whole exercise more self-sufficient financially. I find it difficult to see why local authorities should have to bear the burden of the expense, for they get little out of it. Yet the local authorities, with some help through the equalisation grant, will pay for it.
This ought to be paid for by the people who will benefit from the scheme. It is wrong that rates or taxes should be increased to deal with a problem which arises from people taking advantage of doubts or local good nature and abstracting water which is of very considerable value to them and their crops. Now they are to be given absolute immunity from legal action for £5 a year. This may well be an aspect we should closely examine.
Nor am I entirely happy about Clause 7. Like other Clauses, it could do with amendment. The Government plan to give boards within the control area the right to vary the conditions and eventually, if necessary, to suspend licences altogether. But one of the dangers is that the legal immunity is given in respect of the licence. What happens to that immunity if a licence is suspended? As time passes, more and more people will be refused licences and there will then be more likelihood of the legal rights being challenged. I wonder whether our lawyers have looked at this from that point of view. No doubt we shall hear from them in due course about it.
The Bill will create difficulties for quite a number of people, including the river purification boards, which are not over-endowed with administrative staff for the work that they are to carry out.

This is not just a matter of adjudicating licences, but of the whole rigmarole of receiving applications by 15th September, the administrative work which must be done by 15th October and the decisions which must be taken by 15th November to be in time for the following year. Have the Government considered whether sufficient staff is available to deal with all this work?
It is unfortunate that, despite the Act with which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was associated, the Government have been able to achieve very little in relation to the control and purification of our rivers because of the expense involved in the installation of purification plant. Perhaps we would not now be required to be so harsh about spray irrigation licensing had there been better measurement and standards of purification of effluent. The Government have failed by not taking more positive steps and now we must fall back on negative action to ensure that there is not extraction of water to such an extent that it reduces the flow and, therefore, the dilution of these deleterious effluents.
Finally, I put three points to the Government. First, will they look at the whole question of Scotland's water? Surely by this time they have some plans not just for a survey—we should be beyond that stage—but for action to provide a proper and adequate water supply readily available wherever wanted for agriculture, industry, or the domestic user.
Secondly, we want an assurance that the Government are pressing on with steps for positive purification. It may well be that many industries are too ready to ride off on the excuse of expense, but, nevertheless, especially in the light of our hopes for tourism, for the greater purity of our rivers and for fishing, we should press on with purification.
Thirdly, we must ensure that, wherever possible, there will be strengthening of the river purification boards and in the right way so that there can be no suspicion of there being handed out to friends what will virtually be scarce and valuable licences for spray irrigation.
I regret that, once again, the Government have allowed events to overtake


them and that what is now available to industry and agriculture for the support of our crops after a time when our farmers had to stand by and watch them the is to be denied to Scottish farmers because we have not yet taken action to ensure that the water will be there.

5.5 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made slightly heavy weather of the Bill. Had it applied to England I should perhaps have agreed more with him. I had to follow in considerable detail the passing through the House of the Water Resources Act which concerned England and Wales, and I then learnt the great importance of using England's water resources to the best advantage.
But, because of the geography, the problem in Scotland is quite different. Any angler will know that almost every river starts in a hill and comes bubbling down over the stones and that it is only in the lower regions of a few of the hills that the problem of spray irrigation can arise at all. I doubt whether parts of more than half a dozen rivers will be affected by the Bill, so I think that the hon. Gentleman, in the metaphysical disquisition he made on the details, was making rather heavy weather of a rather minor piece of legislation.

Mr. Ross: It is important to the people affected.

Sir J. Duncan: I agree that it is important to those who may be affected.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State mentioned pollution, I would like to refer to it, in particular, to pollution by detergents. The Sixth Progress Report of the Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents stated that about 51,000 tons of detergent a year is used in the United Kingdom and that this is likely to increase. This large amount of detergent has to be passed through the drains and eventually into the rivers. Paragraph 34 of the Report said:
Complaints of problems resulting from the production of foam in rivers and sewage works continued to be received.
If we are to abstract, or to allow farmers and others to abstract, water from our rivers then it is very important that the problem of foam from deter-

gents should be kept in mind before any licence is granted.
Clause 3 uses the word "contiguous" and I am not sure what it means. It says:
A person may apply for a licence to abstract water for the purpose of spray irrigation from a stream specified in his application where he is the occupier of land contiguous to that stream. …
That does not mean the owner and may be, I presume, a tenant farmer, for the reference is to the occupier of the land.
Here is a problem which does not arise in England, but which can arise in Scotland where there are special and separate hereditaments for fishing. When someone buys fishing rights in Scotland, he also buys part of the bank to give him access to the fishing. If a man who is farming alongside a stream, which is in the ownership of a different person for fishing rights, wants to abstract the water, is he entitled to abstract over the bank which is owned by someone else? What does "contiguous" mean in this context?
If we are to encourage farmers to abstract water for the improvement of their farms, the Bill ought to provide that, notwithstanding any ownership of the fishing rights in the river and notwithstanding any small gap between the actual water and the field lying next to the river, the farmer should have the right to abstract the water over the bank. I hope that my hon. Friend will make this clearer in Committee—

Mr. Ross: Next Friday.

Sir J. Duncan: —but I hope that it will not be on Friday. It is a matter of some importance.
The Bill deals only with streams, but streams are not the only source of water. There are many wells and boreholes and, whatever the Scottish Office may know, I do not think that we know how much underground water there is in Scotland. I know of one man who sank a borehole and got an almost inexhaustible supply of water from a bore about 200 ft. down. I do not think that the flatter areas of Scotland have, ever been subjected to a dowser, but if we are to deal with this matter properly and as a whole it is advisable to


extend the Bill's operation to boreholes and wells as well.
If too much water is taken out of a river or stream, the water table may be lowered all round. Similarly, if there is a borehole used for spray irrigation in a big way, that may lower the water table all round. This would dry up all the wells, whether the water was used for human consumption, cattle drinking, sheep, or anything else, and it might have a serious effect on the neighbourhood all round.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider extending the operations of the Bill beyond streams. I do not know what the word "localities" means in this context, but if it includes areas from which water is abstracted for spray irrigation, whether underground or from surface streams, that would complete the picture and make the Bill more efficient.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) mentioned angling. I have already mentioned the dangers of pollution from foam. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the most likely time for the use of spray irrigation machines is during the growing periods of the crops, that is to say, May, June and July, for instance, which may be the driest period of the year.

Mr. T. Fraser: Horticultural crops are grown all the year round.

Sir J. Duncan: For the time being I am talking about farming.

Mr. Fraser: Horticulture is farming.

Sir J. Duncan: I agree, but I am dealing with large masses of water used in spraying potatoes, for instance. The problem of horticulture is a separate problem.
We should carefully take into account not only the provision of water, but the effect of spray irrigation on angling. Pollution of a river may kill the whole crop of trout or salmon for the whole of that year and do immeasurable damage to the angling interests of Scotland, which means not only the angling interests, but the tourist interests, because we have to bear in mind that the Scottish rivers are potentially an extremely valuable tourist attraction, and that the more we can encourage better fishing the better it will be for the tourist trade.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock mentioned balance on the boards. I am rather sorry that the Government have gone so far to increase the representation of the farmers on the boards. It may be—I do not say that it is—that in some rural areas the existing boards are too weighted with representatives of the farmers. Up to now, the duties of the boards have been anti-pollution. One of the biggest headaches of a pollution board in a rural area is the pollution from farming, particularly from silage pits. So far, the balance on the boards has been such that the farmers have been prosecuted and told that they must drain their silage pits properly and not into burns or streams.
However, if the boards are overweighted with agricultural representatives, not only may that have an effect on the proper drainage of silage effluent, but it may also affect the licensing of the distribution of the water. Therefore, whatever pledge may have been given to whomever, I hope that steps will be taken to keep the balance, either with the reduction of time, or through the appointment by the Secretary of State of people not interested in agriculture if he believes that the existing boards are too heavily weighted with county council and other local authority representatives.
This is a good Bill, although it is not extremely important. I hope that my suggestions will go some way towards improving it by making it more complete and that this question of what is contiguous will be dealt with today, because it is more than a Committee point. It would be a great pity if a tenant farmer, or even an owner-occupier, who did not own the rights to the river were unable to use the water for the irrigation of his crops.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that spray irrigation was for the improvement of agriculture. It undoubtedly is in some respects, but we should beware of trying to improve potatoes through irrigation.

Mr. T. Fraser: Farmers do.

Sir J. Duncan: I know that many people do and they may get extra tonnage, but if the hon. Gentleman reads last month's "Scottish Agriculture" he will find that many people doubt whether the keeping or tasting qualities of the


potatoes are as good. If potatoes have to be kept through the winter and then sold in highly competitive markets against the new varieties which are coming along, it is not necessary in the interests of agriculture to have large crops of potatoes which will not keep.
The Bill can affect only a few parts of rivers when they come down to the alluvial part of the valley before entering the sea, but, with the suggestions that I have made, I think that we can make if a better Bill.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), but I have a higher regard for the Bill than he has. The hon. Gentleman said that it was a good Bill, but not a very important one. I think that it will be of considerable importance in some areas.
The hon. Gentleman said that many rivers would not be affected, and I agree with him about that, but many streams could be affected. As horticulture as well as farming come within the scope of spray irrigation, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that in some areas the abstraction of water from streams could be a matter of major importance.
The Bill is entitled "Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Bill". Is it intended to cover merely irrigation? Is there to be a safeguard that nothing will be added to the water which is extracted for the purposes of spray irrigation? Will it be possible to add insecticides to control pests? If it will not be permissible to do that, I should like that written into the Bill. I agree that it will be extremely difficult to prevent people from adding chemicals to water abstracted for spray irrigation, but I think that something ought to be done to try to ensure that this cannot happen.
It is obvious that the Government have in mind the possibility of pollution, because one sees in the Bill a reference to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, and the fact that the river purification boards are to have additional members. The hon. Member for South Angus probably has some idea of what the farmers think of this aspect of the Bill. Farmers do

funny things, and they do not always tell everybody what they do. They sometimes use methods which are frowned on, and possible the hon. Gentleman could assist us on this matter. I am thinking about the angling interests when I say that we should not allow the addition of insecticides and so on to water withdrawn for spraying operations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was right when he said that the abstraction of water for spray irrigation was an important matter during periods of drought. We must ensure that during such periods no abstraction at all takes place. At the moment we are abstracting from many rivers and streams the maximum possible amount to provide adequate supplies of water for housing and industry. We must make certain that during periods of drought there is the strictest possible control to ensure that the water does not drop below a certain level.
I wish that the Bill had been brought forward at an earlier stage. It is ridiculous that a Measure of this importance has been brought forward in the last weeks of this Parliament. We are told that the Committee stage of the Bill is to be next Friday. Most hon. Members have engagements far in advance of a week, and this method of getting the Bill through is a negation of democracy. It is not good enough to allow us so short a time in which to put forward considered Amendments.
I should like to write into the Bill a provision that if farmers want to abstract water under licence—and we must realise that this licence is to cost only £5 a year—they must construct on their land a holding tank of a capacity to be decided by the Board. Water could then be abstracted when the river or stream was in spate, and stored for use during a period of drought, instead of being drawn off then, with the danger of the water level falling dangerously low. This provision would help the angling interests in Scotland, because already they suffer from the fact that far too much water is abstracted from our rivers and streams.
There is no worse sight than seeing a river drying up during a long drought. When it does, one gets a horrible smell from what should be a clean, clear, stretch of water. Fish die, and plant life is killed. If we claim that we are keen


to promote tourism, we should take every possible step to ensure that we keep our streams, rivers, and lochs as clean and as full as possible. I suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary that one way in which we could do that would be to lay down in the Bill that, when the licence is granted small conservation points should be constructed, so that supplies could be taken for spray irrigation purposes from holding tanks on the farms. The farmers have plenty of money for that. We are giving them enough money each year to build hundreds of tanks. All that I am asking is that they should construct a few holding tanks.
I suggest that this proposal should be looked at where there are areas of drought. There may be areas where lack of abstraction by industries and towns make this unnecessary. I am not asking for this if the need is not there, but where the need is there we should make every effort to lay down safeguards for the conservation of water.
I do not see any safeguard in the Bill other than payment for a licence. Perhaps the P.P.S., who has been examining this and who will be watering, irrigating and spraying all over the vast areas on which he grows crops, would tell us: "Is it all for £5 down and do as you like?". Where people abstract water or get a water supply from the water authority, it goes through the meters and they have to pay for it. When people are paying for something they are more careful about using it. I am only saying that all users of water from a water authority pay for the water they use. If the water that it is proposed to abstract were not abstracted, it would go into the ownership of the water authority which could then relay it to customers and industries in the neighbourhood. In Ayrshire, we sell much water to I.C.I. and other industries, and all of it is metered.
I want to be certain that our rivers are kept clean. I should like to know if some addition will be made to the Bill in Committee by which the Government can make certain that where abstraction occurs if the water seeps back into a stream or river it will not cause pollution.
It would be an excellent step if the Joint Under-Secretary could assure us

today whether a definite pledge has been made that the River Purification Board is to have added farmer representation and, if so, I would suggest that he ought to bring in angling interests. Would the Joint Under-Secretary consider whether the angling clubs affected should have representation on the Purification Board? It would be an excellent thing for the Board and for the areas where abstraction is taking place for spray irrigation if the angling clubs affected had the right to nominate from their membership one member to serve on the Board. That would be an added protection. We are all keen to keep our rivers and streams clean, and I think that we should endorse wholeheartedly any action along these lines that the Under-Secretary can take.

5.34 p.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: I believe that on both sides of the House there is already full and general agreement that this is a Measure well worth while for Scotland. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that this is, however small, an important Measure. I am inclined in that respect to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), who has temporarily left the Chamber, when he said that it was not particularly important. I think that it is important. The Measure itself is important, and it is even more important for the future of Scotland that increasing consideration should be given to the conservation and purification of water in Scotland. As the Scottish nation grows in population, and its industries expand, the necessity for water will become increasingly important.
It is some considerable time ago—a matter of years—when the matter contained in this Bill was brought to my attention as a Member whose constituency covers a great proportion of the Tweed River. I noticed that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who opened the debate for the Opposition, referred to streams, but I am sure that he would not deny the Tweed as being a river, which, with all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, passes through your constituency, but to which you are not allowed to make reference.
While this is important to other areas of Scotland, the proposals contained in this Measure may well have originated in the desire of the Tweed River Purification Board and other river boards in and about my constituency and elsewhere that something needs to be done. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said that this Measure was late in coming. I agree with him that it is. But now it is here and I think that this is the time to look forward to similar Measures in the future which will provide for the purification and conservation of water.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire suggested that it would well be within the compass of farmers to have on their farms water storage tanks. He is not a farmer and I am not a farmer, but we both have farms and farmers in our constituencies. When one considers the vast quantity of water required to deal with the requirements in the Bill for spray irrigation, it would be most unlikely that a series of farms could have the number of water tanks that would be effective. There would have to be a main catchment to conserve water for irrigation. That leads me to a rather dangerous point, and I shall watch the Chair, because I believe that in my area of south-east Scotland and the Tweed there are potentials for the catchment and saving of water in very large reservoirs by the expenditure of funds which will be available at those times of the year when water is scarce in the rivers.
I notice that you are becoming restive, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will not pursue this point further. I merely wanted to follow the remarks made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.

Mr. Willis: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the farmers should not spend money on conserving water to irrigate their crops but that the public should.

Commander Donaldson: That is not what I have said. I had in mind something, but I must watch the occupant of the Chair when I say that if water is to be abstracted that might be done apart from the provisions of the Bill. If there were a financial aspect related to abstraction which could apply to those who build catchments for water to be used at times of scarcity that would be an advantage.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus made a reference to other matters contiguous to the waters of a stream, burn or river. I have with me a considerable amount of correspondence that has taken place between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of various organisations and persons, and part of that correspondence deals with this subject. I had occasion to write to my right hon. Friend as a result of a representation by the River Inspectors Association. His reply was that:
The River Inspectors' third point related to the proposal that control should cover abstraction for spray irrigation from all sources other than public water supply mains. The suggestion made by the River Purification Boards Association about the control of boreholes"—
a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus referred—
covers rather similar ground. One could not rule out altogether the possibility of a borehole being sunk within a few yards of a stream in favourable conditions for seepage of water from that stream, but our advice is that the construction of a borehole on this basis would not only be quite uneconomic but the quantities of water likely to be available would be totally inadequate for the purposes of spray irrigation. Those few boreholes which have been constructed could, in the areas where spray irrigation is developing, draw water from underground sources and the fact that such abstractions would be out with the Act would mean that the farmer concerned might well be challenged at common law over this abstraction of water.
That is not in the Bill, but it is part of the answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.
I have risen because I feel that as this was a matter of thought for so many in the south-east of Scotland, particularly in the counties which I represent, and for those in neighbouring counties—including you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—we should welcome this. it does not go all the way to solving the problems of conservation and abstraction, and all the things to do with the water services of Scotland, but it is a first move, and as such it should be welcomed.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock almost had crocodile tears in his eyes when he referred to the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I did not mention that.

Commander Donaldson: I understood that the hon. Member did.

Mr. Ross: No.

Commander Donaldson: It has certainly been mentioned, but I will not pursue the matter further.
I welcome the Bill from the point of view of the interests not only of my constituents but of those in the surrounding areas. When the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire talks about farmers, he gives the impression that they are all men of substance, but in my three counties there are many who will not be encouraged one way or another by the Bill. However, many small farmers may benefit from its provisions.
The prime object of the Bill is not to say, "You chaps get together to extract water for spray irrigation," but to make clear that there will have to be licences in respect of the control of the supply of water and that an obligation will be placed not merely upon farmers but upon local authorities, including county councils, to have regard to the necessity for sewerage works and purification. That will be necessary if we are to have a sufficient quantity of water flowing.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The Joint Under-Secretary need not have apologised for the absence of the Secretary of State, because he read his brief rather better than the Secretary of State reads his.
There has been some argument whether the Bill is a major or a trivial piece of legislation. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between the two. I believe that it is of some importance in two respects, and that it will become increasingly important. I refer to the question of pollution and conservation. Pollution will become increasingly important as the quantity of effluent being discharged into the rivers increases, and conservation will become increasingly important as the community generally consumes ever larger quantities of water.
Only a few years ago Edinburgh thought that its water problems had been solved by the Talla Reservoir. We used to boast about it. But now Edinburgh is faced with an expenditure of several million pounds on the supply of additional water. I understand that the obtaining of water is now becoming a pressing problem all over the world. We

should not sit back and say, "We have plenty, and do not need to worry". We thought that a long time ago, but considering what has happened to some Scottish streams even since the war we must have some concern about water conservation.

Commander Donaldson: The hon. Member has referred to Talla, which is in my constituency. I agree that that was the situation. I understand that there is a stream contiguous to my constituency to which the Edinburgh Corporation is now looking for further supplies, probably in Selkirkshire. By taking feed water, Edinburgh would be helped as well as the Tweed Valley.

Mr. Willis: I only point out that what was considered an ample water supply a mere twenty years ago has now become a totally inadequate supply, although there has been little increase in population. Every person in this country is responsible for using two, three, four, five and six times as much water as a person used years ago.

Mr. Manuel: I have gone into this matter at some length, and I find that much of the increase is due to the fact that thousands of occupants of municipal houses now have baths installed in the houses and more extensive facilities for washing than they have ever had before. Previously they were the "great unwashed". Now they have proper water supplies.

Commander Donaldson: And all under a Tory Government.

Mr. Willis: I am not disputing what are the causes. I am pointing out that it is happening on a vast scale, not simply as a result of a greater number of baths being provided. Cars are being washed and water used for gardens. The result is that water supplies are inadequate. Industry uses vast quantities of water, much more than in the past. We must recognise that this is one of the problems which faces us. It is a problem which confronts Glasgow as well as Edinburgh, and in respect of Edinburgh millions of pounds will have to spent in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)


referred to pollution. I have a river in my constituency about which I ask Questions regularly. At one time people caught salmon there, but now nothing comes up the river. The last salmon gave itself up in disgust to a wee boy with a pin. There is nothing now in the Esk. Despite the fact that local authorities in the area have undertaken a large-scale sewerage scheme, the river still smells at times and people object. They ask whether the authority responsible for river purification has sufficient power to deal with the matter. A problem arises in connection with the expenditure involved.
Both pollution and conservation are matters of importance, and so I think that this Bill is important. If we permit the extraction of large quantities of water we shall increase the degree of pollution. If we extract large quantities of water we shall affect the amount of water available. Representations which I have received from river inspectors indicate that water used for spray irrigation evaporates or is soaked up by the earth and does not return to the stream. In this way the levels of water in an area are affected.
If pollution results from uncontrolled extraction of water, it poses a question which ought to be settled in other ways than by putting additional representatives of agricultural interests on the river purification boards. It seems to me that this should be the concern of other people. If there is a considerable extraction of water from the River Esk above the town of Musselburgh, or Dalkeith, and a degree of pollution results, it is not the farmers upstream who suffer but the good residents of Musselburgh. They have to put up with the smell and the intolerable conditions. I cannot understand what the Government mean when they talk about increasing the agricultural interests on these boards. Why should we do that? They are already represented. Surely those people who represent the agricultural interests know something about spray irrigation? Why should we suddenly increase the agricultural interest?
I do not know what pressures were put on the Government, but I imagine that they came from the Scottish landowners. That is the most effective form

of pressure which is ever brought to bear on a Tory Government. As soon as the Scottish landowners raise their heads the Government—at least a Tory Government—are on their knees. I was charmed by the manner in which the Under-Secretary of State read his brief, but I was amazed at the manner in which he tried to explain this point. He said that we have agreed that there should be added agricultural interests, without in any way disturbing the balance of the Committee.

Mr. G. Campbell: Mr. G. Campbell indicated assent.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement, but how can we increase the agricultural interest without changing the balance of the Committee?

Mr. Campbell: I was proposing to explain that later at greater length, but I can say now that it can be done by also adding representatives of other interests.

Mr. Willis: It is difficult to see what is achieved by that. What is the result? Only that we have a bigger committee.

Mr. Ross: We shall probably find that all the members are farmers.

Mr. Willis: I do not know whether a bigger committee is more capable of looking after things than a small committee. I should feel more inclined to accept a smaller committee. Members of a bigger committee might not bother to attend the committee meetings. They might say, "I have not the time to attend a committee meeting this afternoon, there will be plenty of others present". The attendance will be smaller, therefore, and less interest will be taken in the work. A smaller committee would be preferable. To increase agricultural interests in order to add other interests seems to me to be fruitless.
The Government representatives receive powerful representations from hon. Gentlemen sitting behind them—the land-owning interests and the farmers—that there should be a greater representation. The Government promised the farmers a greater representation on the boards—

The Earl of Dalkeith: I have noticed an increasing tendency on the part of hon. Members


opposite—whenever they run short of something worth while to say—to start taking a rise out of the wretched Parliamentary Private Secretary, whose ability to take part in the debate is limited. I make no representations on behalf of those such as myself, or farmers who may be interested in this issue. I think this a very good Bill.

Mr. Willis: I was talking about the Scottish landed interests. I think it was a fair comment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) is one—he is one of the very large ones. I suggest that the Scottish landed interests brought pressure to bear on the Government—not the hon. Gentleman but the Scottish Landowners' Association, which represents those interests. That is all it exists to do, and it would not be doing its job if it did not represent those interests. I do not blame them, for that is why they exist. I blame us for allowing these interests to continue for so long and to have such great power. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman but those who allow this.
What do the Government expect to achieve by increasing the size of the committees? In spite of what the Under-Secretary said, he has to confess that there will be no change at all in the actual balance on a committee. Already those committees have 15 members. That is not a bad number if a committee is to work rather than to be merely consultative. I was rather disappointed about these additional agricultural interests, but having heard the hon. Gentleman's explanation that there is nothing in it and that other people will be put on the committees, I see that there will be no change, and I do not understand why it is being done.
I tried to trace this Bill as it went through in another place to find what happened to some of the representations made by river inspectors. I understand that they made certain representations, and it seems that some of them have been met. The first concerned extraction of water from subterranean sources. In spite of the letter which the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles received from the Secretary of State, we would be assisted if the Under-Secretary could make a statement

about this. There is some concern about it. Simply to have the matter referred to in a letter sent to the hon. and gallant Member is not good enough. I should like the Under-Secretary to give us some information about this. Are the river inspectors right in fearing that the Bill does not go far enough? If the hon. Gentleman thinks mat the river inspectors are wrong, will he give his reasons for thinking they are wrong?
Another point concerns the time for granting licences by the Board. I understand that in another place this was altered from a fortnight to a month. It seems that the point has been met. I would not have raised these points during the Second Reading had it not been for the fact that the Government place us in an awkward position by rushing Bills through other stages on Fridays. It is difficult to find time to discuss them in Committee. It would, therefore, help if the Under-Secretary said something on these points today.
The original paragraph 3 of the Schedule said mat a copy of the notice with a copy of the application and any relevant plan had to be sent to every person known to the river purification board to have any interest in any land to which the control order applied. This was objected to as it was considered impossible to carry it out. Am I correct in assuming that the matter has now been dealt with in another place and that if the board find that they cannot comply certain steps will be taken to meet the position?
I had no intention of occupying all this time, but I got led into one or two little byways, as often happens in Scottish debates. The problem is that byways are so often more pleasant than main roads. I think that the Bill is a good one and will be useful. We have to recognise that these are growing problems. They are important now and may become worse. It is much better to tackle them early than to allow them to get into a position to cause very serious damage.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I apologise for having to leave the House for a few minutes during this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, I have had a


great deal to do with these problems and I am interested in their solution.
I welcome the Bill as a small contribution to tackling the problems, but they cannot be tackled adequately until the whole of our water supply system is dealt with in a proper way. It is tragic to find local authorities, as it were, scrambling over the mountains to find places where they can establish reservoirs and competing with each other for the use of streams. This system has to be brought into some sort of order sooner or later. When we were passing legislation to deal with drainage it was seen that in this problem we should plan in a businesslike fashion. Hon. Members will know of the steps we took to drain hillsides. That seemed a wonderful contribution and, as a result, we recovered much agricultural land and mountain pastures. But the net result was that when floods came, instead of the water being held in the hills and undrained, it rushed down into the rivers which flooded and swamped more good land than we had recovered. These things cannot be dealt with in isolation.
Although I welcome the Bill for what it does in regard to small streams, I wish to ask about the position over reservoirs. When they are built the law provides for compensation water so that the water can go down from the reservoirs to the sea. How far would these streams be invaded by this kind of reservation? That is a point which must be looked into. The question of irrigation will become of increasing importance. I have seen what happens in the French irrigation scheme, which in a way is one of the wonders of the world. The French have used their great River Rhone, not only to provide for basic load electricity, but for an irrigation scheme which has turned the whole Camargue and Marseilles area from a bog into fertile land irrigated by pipes. The fertilisation is controlled by the pipes going to crops, and they have turned what was a bog into a great fruit garden. They are training people to manage it. They are growing crops which they have not grown before, and it has been a remarkable development.
In addition, they have used the power of the stream to take water to areas in which there was sun but never water, and they have been able to irrigate areas

of high land and to bring whole areas into cultivation. I understand that it was the inspiration of the Mississippi scheme in America which led to this work. The work in France is being done by the State. Hon. Members opposite may be disappointed to know this, but it is the kind of planning which can be done only by the community. It is worked by people who are giving their lives to this kind of work, and the results have been fantastic. Anyone who has an opportunity of seeing it should take that opportunity.
Scotland needs to do something of this kind, because although there is a scarcity of water developing, millions and millions of gallons run to waste down the rivers at times when water is plentiful. Hydro-electricity is doing something to preserve this water, and atomic energy and pumped storage will recover some of the water and use it over and over again. I agree that subterranean sources can provide a considerable amount of water. The flooded pits of Lanarkshire, which have tremendous quantities of water, are being drawn on for industrial purposes, as should be the case.
Moreover, with atomic energy there is bound to be a great deal of surplus energy during the night—energy which cannot be used. In the Far East and elsewhere we see methods of converting seawater into fresh water. All this provides the opportunity to take water to the right place with energy which might other-wise be lost. We could use that energy and the heat available to turn our land into a much more fertile and beautiful land. Quite near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, or in it, is one of the most adventurous horticulturists perhaps in the world. Certainly he is not surpassed in his ideas. He can produce vegetables in the early part of the year by spraying, by cover to keep out the frosts, and by the use of a certain amount of heat. He has indicated what is possible. He was not afraid of the Common Market because he saw in it a great opportunity for marketing his vegetables.
At one time he had the idea, which I tried to encourage—I was disappointed when it did not come off—of going to the softer climate of Argyllshire, where there is never any scarcity of water, where


there is warmth and good soil, and trying to provide early vegetables for Glasgow and the West Coast. I am sure that this could be done. If Sir David Low, who is building up the town of Livingstone, were called upon by the Government to tell them how to do it, I am sure that he could show them how to use the Bill to develop irrigation in the west of Scotland—not to flood the land when it does not need water, but to conserve the water and to use it on the land when it is required. I am sure that if this could be combined with proper fertilisers, the West Coast could be a great producer of food. In some parts it can grow palms. It seems to me that with a climate like that there is no reason why the land should not be properly used.
But it must be part of a national plan. Politics apart, there is only one sensible way to do it, and that is to bring the water supplies of the country into a great national plan. I understand that when we come to power it will be the policy of the Labour Party to do this. This is not an easy matter because it involves, as the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) said, there are problems of drainage, sewerage, fresh water, evaporation and many other problems. It cannot be done easily.
I agree that interests must be consulted, but the point is that interests are not the executive power. They are the consultative power. Our objection is not to the farmer or even the landowner being consulted. One might even take the butcher's advice when dealing with vegetarianism, but one does not necessarily put butchers on the body to control the propaganda for vegetarianism. One might as well say that cigarette manufacturers should be put on a committee to see whether anything should be done to stop people smoking because of the danger of lung cancer. It is in their interests to do so, but they are unlikely to be missionaries in a campaign to stop people smoking cigarettes. We found this with the purification board. People were there not to get things done but to prevent them from being done, in some cases because it would cost them a great deal of money.
This is important because the cost of purification is sometimes greater than the

benefits which would come from it. All this must be taken into account. I wish that the Government would bear this principle in mind—that experts should be on tap and not on top. The people who should be there are those who judge in the public interest, and they should take everything into account just as the Government do when preparing a Bill. As the board is created, with too many people who do not want things done, the Government are apt to tie their own hands from the point of view of the success of the Bill. I hope that they will keep this in mind when appointing these people. If they are to appoint people of this kind they should consider the principle of setting a thief to catch a thief, but they should not have vested interests appointed who will simply prevent things from being done.
We have this legislation—a little bit on drainage, a little bit of control here, and a little bit of building there. The Department should get down to the fundamental problem of what is to be the future of our water supplies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, we must think of this years in advance. It was 20 years in advance when Talla was made, when they thought that Edinburgh would never need any more water. We have all these advertisements about soap and washing whiter than white. A tremendous amount of water is bound to be used. Cleanliness is said to be next to godliness, and there is bound to be considerable increase in the use of water.
I hope that the Government realise that this is only a small part of a very big problem which will not be solved until there is some authority which has at least a guiding control over what happens to the water when it falls on the hillside and flows down to the sea. We may have to pump it back. We may have to create fresh water from the sea. It may be used for hydro-electric power, we may have reservoirs and all kinds of things. But the water must not be wasted. We should not allow it simply to run into the sea when there is plenty of it if the result is that water is not plentiful when it is needed. I therefore believe that the Government should have a comprehensive plan which will embrace the supply of water generally. Up to


that point I welcome the Bill as one small candle in lighting up this great problem.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: With the leave of the House, I should be glad to answer some of the points raised during the debate. AU hon. Members have drawn attention to various aspects of the need for conservation and purification in certain areas of Scotland. The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has had great experience of these matters, and I was most interested to hear some of the problems which he mentioned and some of his suggestions. What the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said at the beginning, and what has been echoed by other hon. Members, shows that the Measure is necessary.
I should like to underline again that when the Bill, as we hope, is approved and enacted the position will be open for applications for control orders to be made. It is only in the areas where control orders subsequently become effective that licensing will be necessary. In the large majority of the areas of Scotland we do not expect licensing to be necessary.
I should like to deal with the points on representation on the boards at greater length than I could in reply to interventions. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), the intention is that there should be added representation for agricultural interests but that at the same time the balance between the interest should be maintained, so that other new members may also be added. This could be done under the 1951 Act by the Secretary of State and he would consider the composition of each board at the time that a control order was coming into effect and the position required his attention.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked what it should be necessary to make the boards larger in this way. It is for the simple sort of reasons which I am sure would occur to him and other hon. Members. If, for example, there are only two members representing agricultural interests on the board and these important questions of spray irrigation came up it could be that through illness or other reasons outwith the control of

the members concerned only one—or indeed neither—might be present. We feel that an increase in the representation of other interests would not be detrimental to the boards. It would mean that at any meeting when these questions came up there would be more certainty that the various representatives would be attending and expressing their views. Many hon. Members have represented that this is a matter of balancing interests including, for example, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) said, angling interests in contrast to farming interests.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the same difficulty arises with all the other interests. Their representatives might not be able to attend but if he adds representatives of all interests there will be tremendously big boards.

Mr. Gordon Walker: A Grand Committee.

Mr. Campbell: It is not the intention to appoint what the right hon. Gentleman calls a Grand Committee. It would be simply a matter of adding a small number and increasing membership to balance the interests. To increase the number representing agricultural and other interests would make it much more probable that the other members would be able to attend the meeting as well. I do not think that hon. Members can object to this. I have explained that the point is not to increase relative to the other interests the agricultural interests so that they might be considered to be over-weighted.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock spoke of there being no right to take water. The legal position is that a riparian occupier has a common law right to take water for certain primary uses. I did not say that a farmer abstracting water, if he were a riparian owner, had no right. I said that if he was taking large quantities it was open to doubt whether he had the right and therefore we are trying in the Bill to improve on the position and remove doubts. The hon. Member thought that a £50 penalty too little, and I would point out that there is also the penalty of the revocation of the licence which is a valuable licence for the holder.
My bon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) asked me about the meaning of the word "contiguous". He gave as an example the farmer who might be separated from the water of the river by a narrow strip owned by a fishing interest. I can only help by saying that we have looked into this possibility to see whether special provision should be made for this kind of case.
Firstly, situations of this sort seem likely to be infrequent in the areas most affected now by abstraction for spray irrigation. I recognise, nevertheless, that such a situation could arise. The basic legal point, as I have indicated, is the common law right of a riparian proprietor to take water for certain purposes. The non-riparian proprietor has no such right and therefore a person whose land is separated from a river, by no matter how narrow a strip, does not appear to have a common law right.
After careful examination we have reached the conclusion that to try to change the law in this respect, or to make exceptions for non-riparians, would lead to confusing anomalies. If a strip of five yards were excepted, why not 25 yards or 100 yards? However, if a farmer whose land is separated from a stream by a narrow strip of land should become interested in installing spray irrigation equipment, he could try to purchase back a short part of the riverside strip and thus become the owner of land contiguous to a stream and entitled to apply for a licence, but I recognise that he might be unsuccessful in this attempt. We understand that "contiguous" means the land actually washed by the waters of the stream or river.
I have explained the legal position and this is all I can do to help my hon. Friend. I know that it does not do what he was hoping for, but nevertheless I think that it is the most helpful thing that I can do, because it makes the legal position clear to anybody who finds himself in this position.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of boreholes, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson). First, he asked about the word "localities". I should explain that it is used because there may be areas where it is far too complicated to try and follow the

whole network of small watercourses and streams and much easier to designate an area.
I can confirm that the best technical advice available to me is that the construction of boreholes for the purpose of obtaining supplies of water from a river bed by means of seepage would not only be quite uneconomic but that the quantities of water so obtained would be totally inadequate for spray irrigation. The amount would be so small as to be of limited value.
The question arises whether boreholes should be included in the scope of the Bill. Few boreholes have been sunk in Scotland for spray irrigation and those draw their supplies from underground strata. As I have indicated, it is most unlikely that a borehole could draw water in sufficient quantity for irrigation. Normally the water is pumped into a pond and from the pond, in due course, it is sprayed on the land. It is our intention therefore that boreholes should not come within the scope of the Bill.
We shall consider whether this should be made absolutely clear by an Amendment. If we think that this is necessary or desirable we propose to table an appropriate Amendment in Committee. I think that this will help farmers, because farmers who can at the moment sink boreholes on their land and obtain water from the strata below without in any way interfering with the flow of streams will be happier to think that they can do that without being involved in the licensing procedure of the Bill. Secondly, as we have agreed during the debate, the purpose of the Bill is to deal with the flow in streams and not to go into the question of wells and strata.

Mr. Willis: I understand the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but whether a borehole near a stream would take a large seepage would depend upon the nature of the strata. Although in many cases it might not take very much, it is conceivable that it might well take a great deal. It was the river inspectors themselves who were concerned about it, and they are by no means ignorant.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, this was an important point which they raised, and it enabled us to go very carefully into the technical and geological considerations. As a result of our investigations,


I can state categorically that boreholes are very unlikely to affect the flow of streams and that farmers are much more likely to be embarrassed if we bring them within the scope of the Bill than if we exclude them. Of course, if the findings had been otherwise, we should have had to bring them in.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked about the addition of chemicals or insecticides. This is not likely to be a technique used in spray irrigation. It is certainly not at present, and it is most unlikely to be. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East pointed out, one of the attributes of spray irrigation is that the liquid does not return to the stream.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked about storage tanks. If water is abstracted from a river and placed in a storage tank for the purposes of spray irrigation, it will fall within the scope of the Bill. Under the agricultural water supplies scheme of 1937, it is possible for farmers to obtain a 50 per cent. grant for such storage tanks. I imagine that the boards are likely to favour applications which include such tanks or ponds because, obviously, their use will assist the conservation of water. The hon. Gentleman asked also about fishing interests. Most of the boards have at least two members representing such interests. I know that the board he is thinking of has only one, although some of the members have a dual interest. We shall take account of the point which he made about that.
In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, I can confirm that both Amendments dealing with the points he raised were made in another place. The second one is in the form of the proviso added at the end of paragraph 3 of the Schedule.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock made three general points. First, he asked about water policy. We recognise the importance of a water policy as a whole. Important steps to reorganise water services for Scotland, and for Ayrshire in particular, are in hand. My right hon. Friend regards the positive encouragement of purification—the hon. Gentleman's second point—as extremely important.
The hon. Gentleman's third point was on the quality of the boards. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend recognises the need to have very high-quality representatives on river purification boards. So far as it lies within his power, he will assist to that end.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Committee Tomorrow.

SPRAY IRRIGATION (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable river purification boards in Scotland in pursuance of their functions to control the abstraction of water for the purpose of spray irrigation, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act and of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

Resolution to be reported. Report to he received Tomorrow.

SPECIAL ROADS, SCOTLAND

6.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move,
That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (Scotland) Order 1964, dated 5th June 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
I need only say that this is a procedural Order which varies the classes of traffic specified in the Second Schedule to the Special Roads Act, 1949, and it is necessary now because one stretch of motorway is likely to be completed before the end of this year and a second is ahead of schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LEVY)

6.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I beg to move,
That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Reglations, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.
As the House knows, cinema exhibitors pay a statutory levy the proceeds of which are distributed to the makers of British films. The subventions from this levy, which run at about £4 million a year, are an important addition to the income of our film makers. Under the existing Regulations governing this statutory levy, a producer whose film is booked to television at the time when it comes to be registered at the Board of Trade for cinema showing loses his entitlement. He is similarly disqualified if his film is exhibited to the public on television earlier than twelve months after its registration.
The experimental services of pay-television announced by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on 11th December will be on a restricted scale. Hence, it is unlikely that these services will be able themselves to generate the major part of the material which they will require, let alone all of it. Therefore, they are likely to show a considerable number of cinema films.
However, as these experimental pay-television services will be limited, returns to our film makers from this source are likely to be small compared with those from cinemas. Nevertheless, they will be welcome. Moreover British film makers are keenly interested in the long-term possibilities of pay-television. They think that it will offer them a real chance of regaining their lost cinema audiences.
The disqualification in the existing Regulations to which I referred a moment ago means that the maker of a British film would lose his levy benefits, possibly amounting to £100,000 or more on a really successful film, if it were shown on pay-television before it was a year old. This would make it virtually certain that no reasonably new British film would get on pay-television, while foreign films, having no levy privileges to lose, would not be similarly deterred.
Clearly, this would be in direct contradiction to the purpose of the levy, namely, to help British film makers.
The amending Regulations now before the House, therefore, remove in respect of the pay-television experiments the television disqualification in the existing Regulations, subject only to one condition. This condition is that the film concerned has not been shown on pay-television during the six months before its registration. This condition has to be made so as to discourage any tendency that there might otherwise be for people to get round the Government's arrangements as a whole in respect of cinema films and pay-television.
The House will no doubt wish me briefly to describe these arrangements. It has to be remembered throughout that we are dealing with experiments, and not with permanent services of pay-television. We also have to remember that there is a body of films legislation, none of which was drawn up with pay-television in mind. It is perhaps fortunate that the expiry of this legislation in 1967 should fall more or less at the point in time when experience of pay-television will be accumulating from the pay-television trials.
The arrangements that we are making for cinema films and pay-television during the experimental period are in two main parts; first, certain safeguards for exhibitors in the trials areas and, secondly, a voluntary system for the collection of a levy from the pay-television operators. The safeguards have been drawn up in the light of views expressed in the Cinematograph Films Council on the two occasions when it considered them. The Council also recommended a voluntary rather than a statutory levy scheme for pay-television. Most important of all, the change in the Regulations now before the House is in accordance with the views of the Council, which has been consulted in accordance with the requirements of the 1957 Act.
The safeguards for local exhibitors are, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, and they were described to the House in general terms on 5th May by my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General in answer to a Parliamentary Question.
Perhaps I may remind the House that these safeguards include a provision for the withholding of certain types of cinema films from pay-television until the local exhibitors—unless, of course, they agree otherwise—have had six months in which to play them; and a limited amount of compensation in each area against the possibility that a cinema exhibitor can point to the prior showing of cinema films by pay-television and can demonstrate a loss of box-office takings reasonably attributable to that cause.
The Post Office, in consultation with the Board of Trade, is now in the final stages of drafting the detailed rules embodying these safeguards. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will secure any necessary undertakings from the pay-television operators before issuing their licences, and the final texts of the rules will be placed in the Library when they are completed.
Then there is the question of statutory levy. It is our view that during the experimental period the pay-television operators should not be included in the statutory levy scheme, but rather that they should contribute to the fund voluntarily. The reasons for this are a little technical, but I do not believe that the net effect will be very different.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development has secured an undertaking from the pay-television operators that they will contribute, for as long as he wants them to do so during the period of the pay-television experiments, to a non-statutory levy scheme on a contractual basis. The Board of Trade will shortly arrange a meeting at which we hope to set the film producers, the distributors and the pay-television operators to the task of working out a detailed scheme to which my right hon. Friend can give his approval. He will expect any such scheme to reproduce the main features of the existing statutory one—

Mr. Stephen Swingler: It is admitted by the very fact that compensation provisions are to be made that the pay-television operators are in competition with the cinematographic exhibitors. Why should they not be subject to the statutory levy?

Mr. Price: The hon. Member is tempting me to go into the technical reasons. I think that the Cinematograph Films Council came to the same conclusion as ourselves, remembering that this is for the experimental period only. I could go into some of the technical reasons, not the least of which is (hat, at this stage, when none of these trials has yet been done, we have no idea as to the quantity of films they are likely to be playing. We do not know for how long some of these trials; will go on, and the arrangements we are proposing cover the trial periods only. When the trial periods are over we may find, with the experience behind us, that the hon. Gentleman may well be right, and that it might be the proper thing to do, but that will be when the whole country will or will not, according to the results of the trials, be covered by pay-television.
We then come to the further point that when the Cinematograph Films Council considered the proposed levy on the experimental pay-television operators, it recommended that the levy should be collected in respect of all cinema films, even if they were not identifiable as cinema films at the time when they were playing on pay-television. We shall be asking the organisers of the proposed nonstatutory levy scheme to try to work out arrangements to meet the Cinematograph Films Council's point. It seems to us probable that such arrangements would involve some retrospective collection.
Then there is the final matter of what rate of levy contribution it is appropriate to expect the pay-television operators to pay during the experimental period. The Government have decided that since there will usually be a six-month delay in the showing by pay-television of new cinema films, the position of the pay-television operators is more analogous to that of the subsequent-run cinema exhibitors than to that of the first-run.
My right hon. Friend has therefore decided that the pay-television operators should be required to contribute to the non-statutory levy at a rate of 6 per cent. of their gross takings, and this figure has been accepted by them. At that figure they will, we believe, be making an appropriate contribution, since sample figures for the experimental areas show


that the average for all cinemas is 7·2 per cent. and, for subsequent-run cinemas, 4·3 per cent.
In the course of our consultations with the Cinematograph Films Council, the Council recommended to my right hon. Friend that the pay-television operators should contribute to the non-statutory fund at a rate equal to that at which the big first-run cinemas contribute to the statutory fund. After mature reflection, we came to the conclusion that this was not entirely the right basis of comparison for what will be, after all, only trials. Therefore, my right hon. Friend, with regret, was unable to accept the Council's advice on this point.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat that we are dealing only with short-term experiments in pay-television. There is nothing here that in any sense commits us beyond the experimental period. I hope that, with this explanation, the proposed change in the Regulations to waive the television disqualification in respect of pay-television will meet with the approval of the House.

6.48 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: We should make it clear that while we would not oppose this Statutory Instrument, we are rather concerned about it. The Minister will himself appreciate that we are dealing with a very awkward situation owing to the experimental period, to the number of imponderabilia, and to the difficulty of forecasting what is likely to happen. Quite frankly, I have a very poor view of the experiment altogether. I think that it is very largely a phoney experiment, and one in which it will be extremely difficult to make a judgment except on narrow technical matters. Owing to the artificial conditions of the experiments agreed by the Postmaster-General, it will mean that in those areas designated, and for the period designated for the experiment, a disproportionate amount of film material will be used on the programmes, for reasons into which we need not now go.
There is also the problem that if certain relaxations are made, as are now proposed for the pay-television experiment, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. may, in due course, also ask for some re-

mission of their obligations. Therefore, although this is a very small and limited change in the Regulations, it causes a great deal of concern, as it might be used as the thin end of the wedge in subsequent periods.
I appreciate that there is no time limit in the Regulations other than by reference to an experimental television service. On the other hand, as the Minister has pointed out, they will lapse automatically with the lapsing of the legislation in 1967 and the two things would roughly coincide. We have, however, just been told that it is likely that the pay-television experiment, instead of starting this autumn, will not start until a good deal later. That is what the trade Press, at least, is saying.
Therefore, we wonder whether it is really necessary in those circumstances to bring in the Regulations at the end of the Session with so many things still not fully determined. We do not know, for example, exactly what the contractual agreement will be between the television operators which will be supervised, I understand, by the Board of Trade. It seems in some ways a pity, if there is to be a revised timetable for the introduction of the pay-television experiment, that the Regulations should be brought forward before those other matters have been fully decided.
This is causing some disquiet in the exhibition side of the industry. The people in that side of the industry would like a statutory levy arrangement for this experiment. For a number of technical reasons which were fully discussed at the Cinematograph Films Council, we came, some of us with great reluctance, to the conclusion that a voluntary scheme would have to be accepted in the initial stages. The exhibitors, however, who would have liked the statutory scheme now, say that the exemption which is being provided for under the Regulations means that the pay-television companies will have obtained the benefit without accepting the specific obligations which should form the other side of the bargain.
We are really put in a position in which we have to take all this on trust, including the negotiating ability of the Board of Trade to produce a form of contract for the pay-television people concerning the levy. We understand, of


course, that the other safeguards are being looked after by the Department of the Postmaster-General, but the levy is within the purview of the Board of Trade. Unless an adequate basis can be established, we are being asked in the Regulations to agree to a relaxation which will be for the benefit of certain people without knowing the precise terms of the other side of the account.
I was a little disturbed to find that the Board of Trade has, apparently, disregarded the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council on the percentage of gross takings. At one time, we were talking of something a good deal higher—10 per cent. It has now been brought down to 6 per cent. That is rather unfortunate.
The other thing which worries me is that we should not have had a very firm declaration from the Minister that the films which will be particularly dealt with by the Regulations—those which might be shown on television before they are registered as cinematograph films—will carry retrospective levy obligations. I regard this as vital. We are here waiving a condition and saying that a film which has been shown unregistered, provided that it was six months after its first showing, will be entitled to obtain its cinema levy payment at a later date. One of the great arguments has been that this loophole should be firmly closed. We ought to have been told especifically that there will be retrospective payments.
I do not want to delay the House, because other business is to follow. In the circumstances, it is a pity that we should have to take the Regulations now if it is true, as we are told in the trade Press, that pay-television is not likely to come into operation until quite a time later than we had originally supposed.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: We ought to spend a certain amount of time on the Regulations because they have certain important features, especially for those who have been interested in the rather complex system of legislation which has been built up over a long period of years about the cinematograph film industry. I do not envy any of those in the Board of Trade who have to deal with this matter. It is an extraordinarily complex system which has been built up over three or four

decades for the purpose of maintaining a thriving British film-producing industry and of trying to maintain a choice for the consumer. The system has many difficult features about it and we have had many complicated and delicate discussions upon it.
The Government must realise that something very important has happened in regard to pay-television. As revealed in the Answers to some Questions which I put down on this subject concerning the right to exhibit cinematograph films on pay-television, the Government have decided in this case to intervene directly to create a privileged position for the pay-television operators. Let us be quite clear about it.
As spelled out in an Answer by the Assistant Postmaster-General not long ago, the use; of cinematograph films by the major television circuits has been a matter of commercial negotiation between the bodies concerned. It has been a matter for the B.B.C. and the independent television companies and, on the other side, the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association and the British Film Producers' Association, who have conducted the negotiations. The film industry has developed a protective skin about the matter. Realising the ways in which its interests might be damaged by the widespread and indiscriminate use of cinematograph films on the television circuits, it has developed an organisation to defend its interests and to lay down certain conditions which hitherto have debarred the major television circuits from getting films that were less than 10, or even 20, years old for exhibition on the television circuits.
As the Assistant Postmaster-General said in reply to Questions, that was a matter of commercial negotiation. It had nothing to do with the Government. The Government, rightly or wrongly, refused to take a view one way or the other about the exhibition of films on the major television circuits. Therefore, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. have so far been denied the right to exhibit for the benefit of viewers films that were not extremely old.
Now, however, when the Government are bringing forward Regulations of this kind, they have taken an entirely new step. For the benefit of the experimental pay-television operators, the Government have intervened to enable them to get


comparatively new cinematograph films. As the Parliamentary Secretary has frankly admitted, they have done it because, otherwise, the pay-television experiment simply would not get off the ground. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has just mentioned, it is a big question today whether the pay-television experiment will get off the ground at all. We should like to know tonight in the reply from the Treasury Bench exactly what is the position.
There are stories in the trade Press of postponements and procrastinations, and it seems likely that the date of the bringing into operation of the pay-television experiment will be considerably postponed. Therefore, the first question that we are raising is whether it is necessary to make any haste at all, in considering Regulations of this kind—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, further considered.

A Clause.—(COMPENSATION FOR LAND COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED.)

Where land is to be acquired compulsorily under this Act the price paid by the Council in compensation shall be a price agreed by the vendor and the District Valuer subject in case of disagreement to appeal to the Lands Tribunal.—[Mr. Iremonger.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I rise to commend the new Clause to the House. The Bill envisages, most conspicuously in Part II, Clause 5, the compulsory acquisition on a large scale of private property by the London County Council, who are the promoters of the Bill. It is relevant, therefore, for the House to consider the methods used by that authority to assess and value the compensation to be paid to private owners who are the victims. The new Clause,

which I and hon. Friends of mine have tabled and which we are now debating, is designed to ensure that these valuation methods shall be such as to command public confidence.
The methods currently used by the London County Council do not, unfortunately, as I shall seek to show, command public confidence. This is not the first time that I have drawn the attention of the House of Commons to this problem. I did so on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, when my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, whom the House will be glad to see in his place, encouraged me in his reply to pursue further my researches into the matter. I had not expected to have anything further to submit to the House so soon on this subject. Indeed, on Second Reading of this Private Bill I felt that no useful purpose would be served by further discussion of it.
Since then, however, I have received a remarkable letter from a source so revealing, so authoritative, of such a nature and so relevant to the argument that I feel that it would be only right to put it on record for the information of the House and of the public at large. I do that in the hope that the House may be persuaded to improve the Bill in this respect, even at this late stage.
Before I read the letter to which I have referred, it might be for the convenience of the House if I summarise briefly the argument which is at the heart of the new Clause. It is as follows. When compulsorily acquiring private property most local authorities pay—and, in my submission, all local authorities should pay—compensation to the dispossessed owner at the value assessed by the district valuer. The district valuer is an official of the Department of Inland Revenue. He is entirely independent, especially in so far as he is not employed by the local authority which is acquiring the property compulsorily. If he was employed by that authority, he might be thought to have an interest in paying little rather than more.
The London County Council, which is promoting the Bill, is one of the authorities which do not follow that practice. The London County Council uses its


own employees to say what compensation would be fair. The Council is, therefore, in the position of appearing to be judge in its own cause. That transgresses the first principle of justice and causes the dispossessed owner to suspect that he may not have got a fair deal.
I know that the answer which the London County Council would give in its defence is to say that the dispossessed owner can always appeal to the Lands Tribunal if he is not satisfied with what the County Council's—the acquiring authority's—employee tells him the Council is prepared to pay in the interests of the people which it represents. That answer, however, is altogether too slick for the House to accept. Life is not as simple as that, as the monkey found when he tried to pull the nut out of the jar after he had closed his fingers around it.
In the first place, it takes no account of Section 30 of the Land Compensation Act, 1961, and no account of Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963. This is a matter on which the National Chamber of Trade and the National Farmers' Union have expressed anxiety and strong feeling, and it particularly affects small shopkeepers on quarterly or weekly tenancies.
In the second place, there are two factors which operate. One is the risk of incurring costs in appealing to the Lands Tribunal, which deters many small property owners from appealing and coerces them into knuckling under and accepting the acquiring authority's valuer's offer.
The other factor is the need for the small occupier to conclude the transaction swiftly so that he can collect the cash and buy himself another home, because he cannot finance the delay of an appeal. So I am afraid that the existence of the Lands Tribunal is not the complete answer by any means to the anxieties of the victims of compulsory acquisition.
So much for the argument. I will now summarise the grounds on which it is based. First, we have the testimony of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), which appears in column 283 of HANSARD of 20th February, 1962. She referred to a "large staff of valuers,

who acquire land for the use of the council, who negotiate to get the best terms … in the council's interests", and she confirmed that philosophy almost at once, after an interruption from me, with the words:
the valuers should get the best terms they can".—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 20th February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 283.]
That was the hon. Lady's view, and that is the considered view of a responsible leader of the authority which actually employs the valuers. That, therefore, must be the duty laid upon them, as they see it.
Secondly, I will further quote from the decision of Mr. J. P. C. Done, a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, of the Lands Tribunal, in the case before him of Ansaldi v. the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation, 1960, reported in 12 P. & C.R., page 220, in which Mr. Done said of the local valuer:
During the cross-examination … he admitted that his valuations were the basis of negotiations. … It was implied that he was bargaining, not valuing. It is desirable to distinguish his function from that of a district valuer who is an independent official whose duty is to assess value and advise, and try to conclude, a settlement at that figure.
Mr. Done went on to say that the local authority valuer:
acts as
the local authority's
agent and he reflects the obligations of his principals to ensure that the ratepayers acquire property as cheaply as is reasonably possible".
Thirdly, still as to authority for the argument, let the House look at the decisions of the Lands Tribunal itself in appeals against the London County Council. Between 1951 and 1960 the Estate Gazette Digest of Cases reports 22 cases against the London County Council. In only four of those cases was the decision in favour of the acquiring authority; in two cases the costs were split; and there were 12 cases in which a straightforward comparison of prices can be made between the authority's final offer and the Lands Tribunal award. In the aggregate these 12 cases accounted for sums totalling £109,517, and the sums awarded totalled £192,267. In other words, when the authority's offers as assessed by its employees were put to an impartial test before the Lands Tribunal they had to


be increased on average by about 80 per cent.
Fourthly, the House might be interested to consider this example, which I have taken from the books of one estate agent—

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: To make the picture clear, would the hon. Gentleman give the figure of the actual amounts claimed? He has given only the amount offered by the council and the amount actually given by the Lands Tribunal. The other figure would be helpful to the House.

Mr. Iremonger: I have not got the figure. I have merely extracted these figures. The House will recognise that as the victim of the compulsory purchase is bargaining with someone who is the employee of the compulsory purchaser, he probably starts as far above what he hopes to get as he thinks the compulsory acquirer is starting below what might be considered fair.
I was saying that the House might be interested to consider an example taken from the books of one estate agent, who is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Over a range of 18 consecutive cases of his which I examined, the aggregate initial offers by the acquiring authority totalled £15,782. The final prices conceded totalled £17,945, and that represents an increase of about 12½ per cent. on average. One might say that as this is. frankly, negotiating and bargaining and not an impartial assessment, that was fair enough, and that divergence was what one would expect in negotiation.
But in six of the negotiated cases the negotiations took over a year, in four they took over two years, and in one case they took nearly three years. In the six cases in which the negotiations took over a year, the average increase was about 72 per cent. compared with the 12½ per cent. overall. So it is obviously a very important factor in getting a fair price whether the victim of a compulsory purchase order, who is often in humble circumstances, can afford to wait and hold on while his representative holds out and negotiates further with the acquiring authority's employed valuer.
So much for the principle, for the broad lines of the argument and for the grounds upon which the Clause is based. When all is said and done, however, the most disturbing element, to my mind, is the undermining of public confidence which this situation of a local authority quote a remarkable document which came to me unsolicited from a Fellow Surveyors who is the head of a highly-of the Royal Institution of Chartered regarded and old-established firm of chartered surveyors.
being judge in its own case is bound to engender. It is on this specific point of public mistrust that I now want to
Before I quote his words, which I find very disturbing, I want to say something—with all sincerity. And I know that in this, if in nothing else, I shall carry the House with me. It is vitally important, in recognising public mistrust of the system and the policy for which we are ultimately responsible, that there should be no possible imputation against the personal and professional integrity of the unfortunate individual officials who are placed by public policy in this invidious position. If they are mistrusted, as it would seem that they are, it is the fault of the system, and the system is the fault of us in this House. With that supremely important reservation, I will now read the letter.
My correspondent says:
I was intensely interested to read in one of the journals
it was the Real Estate Journal
that you had called attention to the London County Council's methods of valuation of compulsorily acquired property.
That was a reference to col. 1788 of HANSARD of 20th March this year.
I have had a very long experience and was
I will not give the details of this gentleman's career for reasons which, unhappily, will be obvious to the House "and my father was the surveyor for" a big public institution "for fifteen years."
The experience of my correspondent runs back to the year 1910. He goes on to say:
I have always said—why is it possible to settle with the District Valuer and never with the L.C.C. without unpleasantness and a tremendous fight. In fact, I have called the


County Hall 'the den of the Forty Thieves'. When I acted for
a certain company which my correspondent names
over the acquisition of
a certain estate which he names
I had to fight to obtain the after-damage value on the sites where the houses were bombed. After the last interview I had with them, two valuers came to see me and I asked them whether it was not a case of now hunting in pairs! After a great scrap I managed to obtain what I considered to be my clients' just deserts and a few days afterwards one of the valuers, who had called to see me, came and asked if I could offer him a job as he was disgusted with the whole set-up. I am now engaged in fighting them over the widening of
a certain road which he mentions
where they are taking
so many feet
off the front of a block of fiats belonging to
his clients' company
and they are trying to maintain that the front land is practically valueless because my clients cannot build on it! ! I have come to the conclusion that all the affairs of the County Hall are governed entirely by politics and the word 'justice' simply does not exist. I simply cannot understand why it is necessary for the L.C.C. to have their own Valuation Department when the whole of their area is already covered by the District Valuers.
In quoting that view, perhaps I should say again that it is not the view of an irresponsible crank with some small petty grievance. It is the view of a professional man who has been engaged in this business for 50 years, and his father before him, and it is a view commonly held among professional people who have had experience in dealing with district valuers and with the London County Council valuers, too. These people do not complain in public because they fear that the London County Council—they have often told me this when I have discussed it with them—would take it out on them in various ways and their livelihood would suffer—

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Hear, hear.

Mr. Iremonger: I am glad that my hon. Friend supports me. He and I know that this is the view expressed by estate agents. They say, "We wish you could do something about it. We can-

not come out in public about it because we have to negotiate with these people in the interests of our clients and our business would suffer". They trust the district valuer, and they distrust the county council's valuer. They find the district valuer expeditious, fair and courteous; they find the London County Council valuer, shall I say, less so.
In view of what my correspondent says, I submit to the House that it would be irresponsible to give a fair wind to this Bill without recognising a proper anxiety on the score of the evident public mistrust of the system which, in passing the Bill, we are condoning.
In the meantime, in the context of this Bill it is only fair to consider the statement circulated to hon. Members on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. I am struck at once by paragraph 7 of the statement, which reads:
The question of the valuation of property compulsorily acquired by local authorities has already been debated by the House of Commons in the present Session …".
Reference is then given to my speech on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill:
when it was raised by Mr. Iremonger on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
That is perfectly true, as I have indicated. But if the House is meant to infer from this observation by the promoters that the promoters have heard quite enough of this and would be glad if the House of Commons would kindly lay off the subject and shut up, then I think the House would like to say this to the promoters: "You may have your own methods of and your own pressures for making people desist from criticism which you find inconvenient or embarrassing outside this House, but they do not reach beyond the Bar of this House. The subject certainly 'has already been debated by the House', as you observe, and it will be debated again and again, as long as any hon. Member feels that there is something wrong here which ought to be put right." That is the answer that this House should give to the clear innuendo in paragraph 7 of the Memorandum.
But that is by the way. The main point in the statement is that the L.C.C. should not be deprived of the benefits of being


judge in its own case while other mammoth local authorities are to be allowed to get away with it. Put another way, this is the argument deployed by the waiter, in the limerick, to the old man of Peru,
Who found a dead mouse in his stew.
Said the waiter, 'Don't shout
Or wave it about,
Or the others will all want one too!'.
It may well be that this practice of t local authorities being judges in their own cases should be stopped forthwith. It may well be that we should bring them all into better ways. I can only speak as I find. I have no experience of mistrust or otherwise of other local authorities—apart from the L.C.C.—which act as judges in their own cases. They may or may not be mistrusted.
However that may be, I do not see why the L.C.C. should seek shelter under the umbrella of other local authorities which may be less mistrusted. But if the House is really moved by this plaint on the part of the promoters of the Bill to the effect that others are getting away with it, then perhaps I and my hon. Friends who support this new Clause may introduce a Bill—which I am sure the promoters would wish to support—to apply the principle of this Clause to every local authority in England, Wales and Scotland.
In any case I am not impressed by the objection—that other local authorities are doing it—to the Clause which I invite the House to accept.
I shall not necessarily press this question to a Division if the promoters' apologists plead for leniency in the matter, although the system has to go some time and, like a rotten tooth, the sooner it is out the better. But I do hope that the House will take seriously the warning I have given about public mistrust and the very dramatic and authoritative evidence of that mistrust felt by my courageous correspondent, whose letter—I emphasise—to me was entirely unsolicited. And I hope that the House will at least take this one modest step towards the maintenance of the good name of public administration.
For these reasons, I ask the House to accept the new Clause.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I rise to oppose the Clause. It is misconceived in its purpose. The method which the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has adopted is quite inappropriate for changing the general law. If the Clause were carried it would apply only to one local authority and even then to a very limited part of that local authority's public acquisition of land. For all these reasons the Clause is, I repeat, entirely misconceived.
I am merely astonished that the hon. Member should go on pursuing what seems to be a kind of vendetta against the valuers of the London County Council. The time of this House might be better spent in some other way. The evidence he has produced is almost entirely that which he produced in March and a great deal of it, as I shall hope to show, is not absolutely accurate.

Mr. Iremonger: I want to take up with the hon. Gentleman his use of the word "vendetta". Perhaps he will do me the credit of acknowledging that I did not write to myself the letter that I quoted.

Mr. Skeffington: I was not dealing with that point but with the fact that I know that the hon. Gentleman has had disputes with the valuation department of the L.C.C. over long periods, and I think myself that this would be a bad reason—I hope that it is not the only reason—for him to continue this case.

Mr. Iremonger: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give way again. Will he indicate precisely what he means? I have had no disputes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet simultaneously.

Mr. Skeffington: I do not intend to give way every other minute to the hon. Gentleman. If he has a valid point, I will see that he has an opportunity to make it.
This annual Measure—the London County Council (General Powers) Bill—contains provisions for the public acquisition of land in connection with some important road works. That is the only matter which would be affected by


the Clause. It is inappropriate, even if there is substance in the hon. Member's general case—I suggest that there is none—to use a Private Bill of this kind to try to effect a general alteration of compensation law in respect of one authority for a very limited type of land acquisition.
The hon. Member kept on saying that the L.C.C. attempts to be judge and jury in its own case. In fact, the L.C.C. and every other local authority acquire land only in accordance with the provisions, particularly Section 1, of the Land Compensation Act, 1961. I am quite certain that, if there were any suggestion that the L.C.C had not scrupulously followed the law of the land, this would have been taken either to the courts or to the Lands Tribunal. But there is no suggestion that in any case the L.C.C. has been anything but scrupulous it its attitude.
The hon. Gentleman perhaps does not know—if he does not I excuse him for not mentioning it but he nevertheless should know, and if he does know it is an unfortunate suppression—that, in fact, the L.C.C. itself consults the district valuer in respect of a large number of its acquisitions. Yet, since it has a separate Money Bill every year the L.C.C. has not the same obligation, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in March, that is imposed on every other local authority to consult the district valuer. Nevertheless it does so. In these cases it approaches the district valuer to find out what value he puts upon the land. Those who think that the L.C.C. does not bring the district valuer in are not aware of the facts. But the hon. Gentleman should have known and recognised them. But of course it greatly weakens his case.
But the whole case that the L.C.C. is some powerful organisation crushing the little landowner, who is always assumed to be defenceless and without resources—that may be so in some cases—falls to the ground when it is known that the L.C.C. always advises those with whom it is treating to employ for themselves properly qualified valuers and, what is more important, pays the fees of those valuers. That is a complete answer to his suggestion that powerless individuals are having to combat the mighty L.C.C. The fact is that the L.C.C. goes out of its way to see that those with whom

it is deaing have the best independent advice freely given and for which the L.C.C. pays. This is stated on every notice to treat. That destroys the whole of the hon. Member's argument.
The hon. Member again referred, as he did in the debate in March, to cases which had appeared in the Estates Gazette. He said there were 22 cases listed between 1951 and 1960 and that in only four cases in which these matters were submitted to the Lands Tribunal was the award of the L.C.C. upheld. That statement was wrong. In seven cases the L.C.C.s figures were either upheld or actually reduced. But he did not give the figure for which I asked him in our March debate because that would throw into relief the fact that the total claims of these 22 cases made on behalf of these individual landowners were as high as £947,000. The L.C.C.'s offer was £139,000 in the 22 cases and the Tribunal's final awards totalled £180,000. So the difference between what the L.C.C. offered and what the Tribunal finally settled was very small. But the amounts claimed were quite astronomic.
There have been a number of other cases of which, apparently, the hon. Member is not aware. Other cases went to the Tribunal between 1951 and 1963 and in every one the Council was upheld by the Lands Tribunal and to the extent that in three cases that the Lands Tribunal actually awarded less than the County Council had offered. This accords very ill with the picture of a crushing machine trying to get the land for the least possible payment.
Perhaps he does not have better ammunition, but I do not know why the hon. Gentleman keeps referring only to ancient cases. I could give him many more which have occurred since 1960. Ten cases have been brought to my attention since then which were referred to the Lands Tribunal. In only one did the Tribunal award the same amount which was offered by the County Council and in seven out of the other nine cases, the amounts awarded were less than the County Council had offered. In the claims during the period from 1952 to 1964 the total amount claimed by owners came to more than £1 million, the Council offered just less than £200,000 and the Tribunal awarded £237,000. On that volume of cases that is a very


accurate valuation, supported by an outside independent tribunal with but slight variation. It makes complete nonsense of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
I therefore hope that we can dispose of the suggestion that the County Council in these cases has acted unreasonably in the amounts offered, or in the way in which the amounts have been negotiated. If the picture is as bad as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, it is extraordinary that there has never been any suggestion of duress in the counties of Middlesex, Surrey and Gloucester or the county boroughs of Birmingham, Plymouth, Bristol and Brighton, and the City of London—which, I am sure, is very dear to the hon. Gentleman—which all employ precisely the same method as London County Council.
In his very full and comprehensive reply on 19th March, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
I do not think it either fair or accurate to dub this particular procedure"—
that is the employment of qualified valuers—
as the local authority or anyone else acting as a judge in his own case because the district valuer is no more of a judge in this case in the sense that he is an independent arbitrator than any other valuer which a local authority might employ … I should want a great deal more evidence from records of cases to be convinced that the London County Council valuers are overruled more often than district valuers or any other form of valuer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 1799–1800.]
From the information which I have quoted—and the list is comprehensive and nothing has been consciously left out—it will be seen that the sums offered by the Council were supported by the Tribunal, or when they were reduced, the difference between the two figures was very small indeed.
In view of all that, and as the hon. Member has had a run for his money, now that we know that there is nothing whatever in his allegations, on the figures, the number of cases, or on the methods employed, and as he did not tell the House that the London County Council does consult the district valuer about the price, and in view of the far more important fact that the London County Council advises every applicant with whom it negotiates to equip himself

with a qualified valuer, whose fees are paid by the Council, we can dispose of the story of the luckless and defenceless individual fighting this huge L.C.C. machine. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he has achieved whatever purpose he has had in mind and will now have the decency to withdraw the Clause.

7.36 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I do not want to repeat all that I said in the earlier debate on this subject, but I remind the House that the general position is that all local authorities are free to employ anyone they like to negotiate the price of land which they are about to acquire, whether by agreement or compulsorily. There is a minor exception to that in that it is laid down in the New Towns Act that a district valuer is to be employed, but even here it is not for the same sort of consideration which has impelled many local authorities to employ a district valuer. It is because a district valuer's certificate is important for loan sanction to ordinary local authorities and to new towns for the financial support from the Treasury on which the finance of new town corporations is based.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) that, whatever the merits or demerits of the new Clause, it would be wrong to legislate in a Bill of this sort not only against one local authority, but in respect of one set of acquisitions, which are very limited compared with the enormous number of negotiations about land which a body of the size of the L.C.C. has to contemplate every year.
On the other hand, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has no right to bring forward this argument on the Bill. If he strongly feels that something is wrong, my hon. Friend has every right to bring up the matter in this way. But this is not the right way to legislate, even if I accepted all his strictures against the London County Council valuers.
As I tried to explain in the previous debate, the London County Council is not a judge in its own case. This is basically a question of negotiation. No one


would claim that valuation was a sufficiently exact science for anybody to be able to say, "This is the value of plot A". I am sure that these very distinguished and devoted people who serve the district valuers' departments would be the last people to make that claim. There is always an element of negotiation and there are bound to be differences of view and, if the appeal procedure to the Lands Tribunal is to mean anything, there are bound to be occasions when the Tribunal will disagree with the party acting for the acquiring authority.
My hon. Friend has not added anything to the evidence which he produced before. So far as I recollect, the 18 cases which he quoted then are those which he has quoted today. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has quoted a number of others. I admit that I did not take down the figures and I shall read them with interest in the morning. However, there is no great evidence that the Lands Tribunal consistently finds that the L.C.C. valuers are under-estimating values and forcing people to go to the Tribunal in order to get a fair deal.

Mr. Skeffington: The figures are the other way.

Mr. Corfield: As I said, I did not take down the figures, but I will accept the hon. Gentleman's word for what they prove, in so far as figures prove anything.
To be frank, it is not right for a big authority which is acquiring land under compulsory powers to regard its own valuers' functions as primarily to do the best they can for the authority. There may be occasions when there are very large deals, which would probably go to the Tribunal anyhow owing to the wide difference between the two parties, when that might be a legitimate attitude. But I have sympathy with my hon. Friend on the score that there are many small people involved and one wants to ensure that they are not forced to the extra expense and anxiety of an appeal to the Lands Tribunal.
However, it is only fair to underline what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said—that the L.C.C. pays the fees of independent valuers and goes out of its way to advise people to employ them. It is not right to conclude, as

my hon. Friend has done, that the L.C.C. valuers are particularly hard-hearted as valuers go, or that the London County Council is. There is no evidence that the L.C.C. is taking undue advantage of the opportunities which inevitably arise from compulsory powers.
I hope that my view that it is not the intention, particularly when dealing with smaller claims, to do the best for the authority, but rather to find a fair price, will be heeded if it should be the case that another attitude is taken. It is certainly the attitude of the district valuers that their function is to find the fair price and not to negotiate the best price. I think that this is the right attitude, and I hope that it will always be the attitude of any valuer employed by a public body, and especially one of the importance of the L.C.C.
I do not think that the case has been made out for special legislation against the L.C.C. crossing the whole of the general law, which is that local authorities are free to employ their own employees. As long as they adhere to the law as laid down in the Land Compensation Act—and if they do not they will soon be put right in the courts—this seems to be something with which we should not interfere, bearing in mind that as a matter of pure administration if district valuers were required to take over this task in London, the only alternative would be to employ the same men enrolled in the district valuer's corps, or staff, or whatever it is called.
I do not think that this would be a practical proposition, but my main reason for advising the House to vote against the new Clause is that I do not think the case has been made out. Even if I did, I do not think that this would be the appropriate way of altering the law which I would have thought should be applied throughout the whole country and with effect to all public bodies concerned.

7.42 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I was glad to hear the Minister give the advice which he did, and I would not have risen to speak but for what he said about a statement that I made. Perhaps I made it rather quickly and without the clarification which should have attended it. namely, that the valuation department of


the London County Council secures the best price that it can. I should, perhaps, have clarified my statement at the time, and I do so now by saying that it acts in accordance with the requirements of the law which imposes on it the duty to secure a fair market price, and also in accordance with the known wishes of the Council that a fair price should be paid, particularly to the smaller people.
As the hon. Gentleman said, valuation is not an exact science, as I know to my cost from recent experience in trying to buy a house. It is a matter of negotiation. Recently I wanted to acquire a house for a friend. A certain price was asked, and I had to toss up whether to pay the price or to risk losing the house by offering a lower sum. That is the kind of thing which happens between the parties concerned in matters of valuation.
I listened with care to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), and I was a little perturbed to think that there should be such delay, but the considerations which apply to whether a person should refer the case to a lands tribunal applies to the speed with which these negotiations are conducted. As the L.C.C. pays for a fully qualified chartered surveyor to advise the other party, it follows that that adviser, having found at some stage that he is not likely to get any further with the Council, may decide to refer the matter to the Lands Tribunal. If he does not do so, it is obvious that he feels that the Council can be pressed to go further, and obviously he himself has doubts about whether the Lands Tribunal will give a better price to his client.
I say these things to make it quite clear that the London County Council acts in a fair way, and is anxious to do so. I emphasise this by saying that that is the only known wish of the Council. Officers of the valuation department are professional officers, with their own private codes of which they are very proud, and it is not up to any member of the London County Council to tell them to depart from them.

Question put and negatived.

Bill to be read the Third time.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LEVY)

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1954, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

Question again proposed.

7.46 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): In the absence of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) who was addressing us a little earlier, and of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), perhaps I might reply briefly to the points that they made.
I think that the hon. Lady will find that most of the points which she raised were covered in my opening speech in introducing the Regulations. Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman asked why we were bringing these Regulations forward now because they had read in the Trade Press that these pay television experiments were not likely to take place as early as had been thought hitherto. I assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will be issuing the first licence shortly, and that under that licence the operator will be free to start as soon as he gets the licence. My right hon. Friend has reason to suppose that the operator concerned is anxious to get started as soon as possible.
If we had delayed these Regulations until the new Parliament came into being, there would have been a big delay, and we would not have been able to get these experimental trials on pay television going very quickly. This is why we have brought forward these Regulations now.

Question put and agreed to.

FURNITURE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

7.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I beg to move,
That the Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.
As this Order has the approval of the two major bodies in this industry, namely, the British Furniture Manufacturers' Federated Associations, and the National


Federation of Furniture Trade Unions, as its purpose is to increase the levy ceiling from £30,000 to £75,000, and as the reason for this is primarily to provide more money for research in the furniture industry, I hope that the House will approve the Order without my going into further detail, although I would be happy to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

SEVERN RIVER AUTHORITY

7.50 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Severn River Authority Constitution Order 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 896), dated 18th June, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th June, be annulled.
I can outline the background to this matter very shortly. It is quite simply that under the Water Resources Act, 1963, the Minister is empowered by Order to set up a water authority for relevant areas, and under this Order it is setting up one the Severn River Authority.
In that Order the Minister proposes that there shall be a board, called an authority, of 37 members of whom 19 shall be local authority representatives. Among those local authority representatives are individual representatives for a variety of counties and county boroughs but—and this is the kernel of the matter—for my constituency, the County Borough of Gloucester, and the constituency of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), whom I am glad to see in his place, it is proposed that there should be one representative jointly. Speaking on behalf of my own constituency, that is not regarded either as sensible or practicable. That is why I am praying against this Order, and I shall be more than interested to hear what the hon. Member for Worcester has to say about the same point.
If I may now, having explained the purpose of the Prayer very shortly, turn to the background, I would say that Gloucester is a very ancient city. It was a well-established town at the time of the new invasion by the Romans and has had historical incidents of fame ever since. It is known that the Normans

came there and that the Domesday Book was born there. It is known that Parliament sat there long before it sat in this place. In short, I can say that in historical times there has always been a Gloucester, and, of course, going further back to pre-historical times, there has always been a River Severn, and the two have always been connected.
Previously, Gloucester's interest in the River Severn was through the controlling authority, which was known in recent times as the Severn River Board. Gloucester City was a member of that Board, and now the Severn River Authority has taken over the functions of that Board. Broadly, it has now two major functions, those that relate to the Severn itself and its major tributary, the Avon, as one of the most important waterways in the country, and those that relate to the catchment areas. Gloucester is interested in both these functions. I mention this because certain of the represented local authorities are interested in only one or the other.
A large part of Gloucester's trade is channelled through the River Severn. Gloucester is the port health authority with responsibility extending as far as Sharpness Docks. There is a very important factory in Gloucester, Walls Ice Cream Factory, the largest ice-cream factory in Europe and for all I know the largest in the world, which, as everyone knows, produces the most excellent ice cream. It produces the most excellent ice cream because it relies on the most excellent water. Without the water there would not be any ice cream. The purity of the water is absolutely vital and millions of gallons are used by this factory. It is an essential function of Gloucester to control the supply of this water.
Gloucester is, of course, interested in the amenities of the river within its own boundaries and takes an active interest in the recreational use of the river beyond its own boundaries. I hope that I have made it clear that the interest of Gloucester in this river is vital and must be fully and adequately represented.
I now turn to the proposed form of representation. Under this new authority there is to be a council, a controlling body, of 37 of whom 19 are to be represented by local authorities, according to the simple basis of the product of a 1d.


rate. That is the formula adopted. Obviously, it does not work out precisely in each case to a precise number of members, and therefore common sense has to be used in deciding the number of members, having regard to the proportional size of the 1d. rate product. Accordingly, we find that common sense applies in a number of cases, but alas, not in all.
Coventry, for example, which according to this formula should have less than two and a half members, has three members, following the normal principle to which we are well accustomed in commerce, company law, and a whole variety of organisations of taking the next higher unit, where the formula produces less than a unit, because it has been found impossible to divide a man and still have him functioning adequately on a river authority. So Coventry, with less than two and a half on this formula, gets three members. Wolverhampton, with less than one on this formula, sensibly, gets one member. Montgomeryshire, with less than one-half on this formula, gets one member, but Gloucester with more than half and Worcester with more than half are, apparently, to get one member jointly—one member between the two authorities—which is out of keeping with the previous logic, with common sense, with history and with the functions which they have separately to perform. I cannot understand why on this one case alone—and I want to make it clear that the Schedule shows without question that there is no other case of a joint representative—the Minister felt compelled to have one joint representative. The Act does not so compel him. The Water Resources Act, 1963, states in Clause 7(2)
The number … shall be determined by the Ministers having regard to the appropriate 1d. rate product …
It could not be otherwise because we should have part of a man elected. I have already indicated the manner in which this has been interpreted by the Minister. It is not, therefore, necessary or legally compulsory to appoint one member jointly on behalf of these two ancient county boroughs.
I have already indicated that we have precedents galore for appointing one representative in cases where the

formula works out at something less, and that this has happened in a sufficient number of other cases in this very Order to indicate the kind of logic that is applied elsewhere and should be continued in the case of these two authorities.
I want to make it clear that this is not a question of a clash of personalities, or anything stupid at that level. These two counties work harmoniously on many occasions. I am reminded that they join together at the Three Choirs Festival—the most ancient music festival in this country—where they work and, I imagine, sing, harmoniously together. But this is not quite that sort of operation. It must be remembered that these two cities are about 28 miles apart, and their interests do not coincide. They have different interests, different geographical situations, different histories and different councils and committees of those councils which are interested in separate points related to the management of the river and the catchment area. It is essential that they should be each fully represented.
It is not possible to have adequate representation by one joint member. It is not a practicable method. I presume that the Minister has in mind that we might have one member appointed by Worcester for a three-year period and one appointed by Gloucester for the next three-year period. This would not be a satisfactory arrangement, because all the time we would have these committees meeting, wanting to refer and to give instructions and wanting to have their views represented on this authority—committees closely concerned in matters of trade, amenity, culture and the rest. It is not satisfactory that there should be one representative.
I have already indicated that there is no reason why we should not have one representative each. It would mean that a council consisting of 37 members would become one consisting of 38. Nobody else has joint representation.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): It is written into the Bill that the number of local authority members should be only


one more—and it is emphatic in the Bill—than the number of other appointed members. That means that if we add one local authority member we must add one other, and if we add two local authority members we would have to add two others, making a total of four extra.

Mr. Diamond: I should like to comment on that point in a moment. I cannot see any weight in the argument. Even if the number had to rise from 37 to 41—which I do not accept—that really should not tip the scales at all. Its effect cannot even be measured in terms of the arguments that I have been putting before the House.

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Member did not imagine that I was attempting to answer his whole speech in one intervention. I was merely correcting his arithmetic. I was pointing out that we should be considering an extra four and not an extra one.

Mr. Diamond: If the Parliamentary Secretary is saying that he will not be put off by the fact that he will have to add four instead of one, I accept it as a valuable contribution to the debate. If, on the other hand, he is suggesting that this is a major argument against what I am saying I completely dissent from that proposition. I am accepting, for the purpose of the Order, that the Act must be interpreted in this way.
I would add that the Order does not include the original number of proposed appointments. There was a time when the number was two fewer. Representations were made on the basis that it would be more sensible and more in the interests of the authorities concerned and the working efficiency of the control authority itself—the Severn River Authority—if the number were increased by two. Accordingly, it was increased by two. There is no magic in the maximum of 37, or any other number.
We want a satisfactory river authority, and we believe that it can be satisfactory only if it has regard to those authorities which are deeply concerned. I repeat that Gloucester is deeply concerned, and has been for more than 2,000 years, as a city. It is deeply concerned in respect of its trade, amenities, culture and responsibilities. It is deeply concerned, also, in the lower reaches of this river.

According to present plans, local authorities on the upper reaches are well represented, as are those on the middle reaches, but on the lower reaches the representation is over-light.
It is for these reasons that I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts. It is less than sensible to be tied to a piece of arithmetic in order to keep down the number of representatives on a body to a preconceived figure which does not particularly contribute to its efficiency or anything else. Gloucester always has had separate representation on the authority controlling this river and it asks for that separate representation to be continued.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: It is not often that I agree so enthusiastically with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) as I do this evening. The Order fails to take into consideration the real interests of the Cities of Gloucester and Worcester. I know some of the interests of Gloucester, having lived there for several years, and I also hope I know something about the City of Worcester, since I live there at present.
Both cities are closely associated with the River Severn. Gloucester and Worcester frequently co-operate in things like the Three Choirs Festival and the Three Counties Show, and occasionally they fiercely oppose each other, as on the cricket field. To suggest that there is any possible contact or unity in their representation on the river board is wrong.
Both cities have separate problems. I have never understood on what basis my right hon. Friend decided to suggest this joint representation. As the hon. Member for Gloucester pointed out, if we take the measure of the product of a 1d. rate and consider the representation of Montgomeryshire, it is clear that Gloucester and Worcester should have separate representation. Let us consider the representation of the county boroughs of Coventry and Wolverhampton. Those two counties are on the fringe of the area, with no direct contact with the river. The majority of the populations of those two cities have probably never seen the river. Yet they will each be represented on the river board, while the


two cities which are probably more concerned with the river than any other cities or county boroughs in the area will have to share representation.
A further surprising fact is that since the original recommendations were passed by the local authorities my right hon. Friend has agreed to increase the representation for local authorities. As I understand it, however, the increase in representation has been given to two authorities which were already represented upon the body—and, indeed, already had two representatives each on the authority—whereas the Cities of Worcester and Gloucester, both of whom have appealed for representation, have been left with the suggestion that they should have joint representation.
Many different problems have to be considered. About one-fifth of the area of the City of Worcester is subject to flooding from the river. We have a particular interest that this area of flooding should be reduced, if possible, and certainly not increased. Yet although there is this great problem of flooding, including the flooding of such vital places in the city as the cricket ground and the racecourse, the city at times will have no direct representation on the authority.
We have particular problems connected with the river basin. Part of our water supply depends on the river. Part of the city drainage is connected with it. We have a diversity of interests in the River Severn. I ask my hon. Friend also to consider the sort of bureaucracy that is involved in the two cities co-operating in this way. Does he suggest that we should now set up a joint committee so that all the diverse points affecting the two cities should be talked over and discussed before each meeting of the authority? This will involve a great deal of travelling on the part of officials and councillors in order that the one representative allowed for the two cities should be properly briefed.
What happens at meetings of the authority? What priority will the one representative give to what may perhaps be conflicting interests? At times there will be conflicting interests between the Cities of Worcester and Gloucester. If, by chance, the representative comes from Gloucester he may be biased in favour of

that city, and if he comes from Worcester he may be biased in the other direction.
It is not good enough to reply that in the event of extra representation being given to each of these cities other local authorities will demand representation on the same basis. There are no other local authorities which are as concerned in this river and which are as unrepresented as the Cities of Gloucester and Worcester. In order to avoid the bureaucracy that we shall create by this joint representation, and in order to see that these two historic cities, so closely associated with the river, are properly represented, I ask my hon. Friend to consider withdrawing the Order and revising it so that each city has separate representation.

8.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): Perhaps I might start by reminding the House of the provisions in the Act with regard to the situation of the river authorities. Hon. Members will recall that the Act provides that in the absence of special circumstances in the view of the two Ministers concerned, the membership of the river authority shall be a minimum of 21 members and a maximum of 31, with a provision that the local authority members shall always form a bare majority of one. The reason for that—I am sure that hon. Members are fully aware of it—was that the local authority representation is in recognition of the fact that they are the authorities on which the river authority will precept, and therefore they are finding the money.
The whole object of the constitution of these river authorities—which was stated over and over again in the Second Reading debate and during the Committee stage and which received all-party support—was that we should establish authorities—not a collection of representatives of particular interests or local authorities but a body of people with the requisite knowledge and experience to form a corporate whole and able to carry out its functions. It was stressed then, and it is to be stressed over and over again, that even the members appointed by my right hon. Friends—either the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Minister of Housing and Local Government—are not to be


appointed to represent fishing or drainage but to bring knowledge of these problems to the authority.

Mr. Diamond: Is not the hon. Gentleman referring to the special representatives—quite properly—in contradistinction to the local authority representatives? The local authority representatives represent local authorities.

Mr. Corfield: I am coming to the basis of it.
There were of course—although I do not think we need spend long on this—provisions that, in certain areas if there were special circumstances, additional members could be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture or by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport where there were special navigational or harbour interests. In those cases the additional members were to be disregarded when determining for procedural purposes whether the river authority has more than 31 members. A membership above 31, excluding additional members, would necessitate coming to this House with an Order.
The principle on which my right hon. Friends have approached this problem is one on which—although we appreciate the skill of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) with figures—I think even the hon. Member would be challenged to find a better. It is to decide initially the number of Ministerial appointments which should be made to cover the interests of a particular river authority; bearing in mind, of course, that different river authorities will differ in their requirements. There may be more industry in some areas than in others; there may be more fishing rights in some than in others; or there may be more or complex agricultural and land drainage factors in some than in others, and so on. In many cases the importance of the water supply industry will vary. The provision of these special members, if I may so call them, is laid down in Section 6 of the Act. It is required that a representative, or rather a member with qualified knowledge, should appear on every river authority; though it is open to the Minister concerned to increase the number above one, in relation to the importance of the particular skill or

knowledge required in a river authority area.
These interests are listed as land drainage, fisheries and agriculture, appointments for which are the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and public water supply and industry other than agriculture which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. On the river authority of the Severn with which we are dealing—the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that we have had, so to speak, two shots at this—land drainage has four representatives—I use the word "representatives" for convenience and I stress that the whole object is to build a corporate body with the requisite knowledge rather than a collection of delegates—fisheries three; agriculture two; public water supply three; industry other than agriculture three and navigation one, which adds up to 16. This requires 17 local authority representatives to balance the body in the terms laid down in the Act.
These proposals were circulated to each of the various interests concerned and to the local authorities. I make no apology for the fact that we then endeavoured to meet some of the criticisms—or as many as we felt we could—as a result of consulting local authorities and various other organisations, including the Association of Drainage Authorities, the N.F.U., the F.B.I., the British Waterworks Association, the fisheries associations and so on. We increased the membership of the authority by one extra member for the public water supply, making four instead of three, and one extra for industry, which also made four instead of three; and thereby created a total of 18, all these Ministerially appointed members requiring 19 local authority members to balance them.
We therefore reached a situation in which, following the terms of the Act—which the hon. Member for Gloucester correctly read out—the Ministers, having regard to the product of a 1d. rate, should, so to speak, allocate the representatives of local authorities between the county councils on the one hand and the county boroughs on the other; bearing in mind the balance between the two types of authority, with the proviso in Section 7 clearly stating that in some cases the result may well be that a local


authority could have no representation because it would be well below the "half man", and in others it would be suitable to have a shared representation. It was clearly laid down in the Act that this was something which would be considered not only as an exception but as something to be taken into account.
Taking the figures from which we derive this apportionment—I assure the hon. Member for Gloucester that they are according to my arithmetic and that of my officials which I have checked—and taking the total of a 1d. rate product and dividing by the number of local authority representatives, we get the result that Coventry, for instance, has a figure of 2·696, and not something under 2·5. That is the reason why we went to the figure of three members, in the belief—with which I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree—that three is nearer to 2·696 than two.
In the case of Wolverhampton the figure is far from going below one. It comes to 1·02 and I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that obviously again we should have one member. The figure for Gloucester is 0·6 and for Worcester 0·5, making a total of 1·1. Therefore, it seemed sensible to suggest that these were two cities within the same type of authority—both being county boroughs and both, incidentally, having had comments passed on that status by the Local Government Commission, although that is by the way—and both happen to have approximately the same product of a 1d. rate. I fully appreciate that the hon. Member for Gloucester and my hon. Friend desire that these cities should have separate representation. That is a natural reaction, but I ask them to bear in mind that, though it may be true that in this particular river authority they are the only two local authorities required to share a representative, there are local authorities which have areas within the river authority area and are not represented at all.

Mr. Diamond: Of course, one is bound to rely on what the Parliamentary Secretary says, but I have before me the copy of a letter dated 6th May addressed to his Department by the Town Clerk of Gloucester saying that for Coventry the figure is 2·41 and not the figure the Parliamentary Secretary gave and the figure

for Wolverhampton is 2·92 and not the figure he mentioned. I also have the copy of an answer dated 22nd May from his Department which does not controvert these figures in any sense. Although it deals with the question it does not deny the figures nor the argument.

Mr. Corfield: I have seen those figures, but I am sure that the figures I have given are correct. I shall check this, but I think that the earlier figures were based on the proposals before the two extra people were added. The figures I have given have been checked and rechecked.
As the hon. Member and my hon. Friend have said, Gloucester and Worcester have long associations with the Severn. It would be surprising if they had not for they happen to have been built on its banks. I cannot go so far as to say that as Parliament once sat in Gloucester before it came here that is a reason for making this change. Parliament also sat in Acton Burnell, in Shropshire, but that does not give Shropshire an extra seat.

Mr. Walker: Has Shropshire not been given an extra seat?

Mr. Corfield: Not on that particular basis, although if my hon. Friend would like, I would consider adding one more, but perhaps that would be regarded as bias because it is my native county.
I think the proportion of the river authority's area which falls in Montgomery is 14 per cent. Although Montgomery has a low product of a 1d. rate, I am sure none of us would think it right to rule out the whole of the County of Montgomery. In spite of the fact that it is a watershed for a great deal of the rainfall, it would then have no say at all on any river authority. It is right that we should make an exception despite the fact that the actual 1d. rate product comes out at a little less than that of Gloucester.
I hope that the House would also agree that it would be quite wrong to cut out Montgomery from an authority of this sort. One has only to look at the map to see how much of the area is in the river authority area. Sticking rigidly to the 1d. rate product principle there we would be taking advantage of the fact that the Welsh Border counties are particularly low in rateable value, which


is not the case in Gloucester and Worcester. I think it is a right decision.
The hon. Member and my hon. Friend made the point that no two cities of this sort, despite the fact that they are both on the river, and that they take part in singing and go to agricultural shows together, could possibly work together on a river authority without being separately represented. I refer them to a very much older body, the Thames Conservancy, which has had members appointed by two joint groups and representing in one case six local authorities and in another five. That has worked extremely satisfactorily, so much so that the proposal to cut that representation met with particular opposition from the Conservancy.
Not having been closely associated with Worcester but with Gloucester—perhaps longer than the hon. Member for Gloucester—I cannot think that they would want to revive the wars of the past and regard the river authority as a sort of second round of the cricket match later in the season. I am sure that they will work perfectly well on this basis. If they do not, they will do a lot less well than the authority for the Thames has done for a great number of years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester mainly endorsed what the hon. Member for Gloucester said, but he particularised on the reliance of both these cities on the river for water supply and its importance in regard to drainage and so on. I remind both hon. Members that the whole concept of the Act is to ensure that these particular matters of water supply and drainage are represented by the Ministerially-appointed members because of their special knowledge in these matters, but not in relation to any particular local authority. The local authority members collectively represent the providers of the money.
This is the basis of the Act and I am sure it is the right way to go about it. It is bound to produce a number of cases where we have less than half a man, or less than one-and-a-half or two-and-a-half. The occasion arises where we can meet that difficulty by combining so to speak two half men, and this seems a sensible thing to do.
If we go further than that in this authority it would increase the number certainly by another local authority

member and therefore by another Ministerially-appointed member and we shall have the same sort of repercussions on a wider scale in river authority areas which happen to contain more and perhaps smaller local authorities. It is thus possible to get very large river authorities and one of the purposes of the Act was to avoid that. If we are to have an efficient executive, size beyond a certain limit is not conducive to efficiency. I am not suggesting that one extra here would do much damage but if we upset the proposed constitution we might well find that we might have to bring in one member for the County Borough of Dudley and even shoot up the Staffordshire representation from one or two.
There are these ramifications, and I believe we have achieved the right balance. I hope that the House will accept the Order. I can assure the hon. Member for Gloucester that the figures he quoted were those from the original distribution and not from the final distribution.

Mr. Diamond: Never mind the figures which are under disagreement. By the figures under agreement, Montgomery has half or less than half, or in any case less than Worcester or Gloucester. If we accept the principle, which we all endorse, of common sense, how can we deny continuing representation to cities which have had representation on the previous authority which controlled the river?

Mr. Corfield: The figure for Montgomery is ·55, which is more than half, and only a fraction different from Gloucester. The hon. Member must accept that in setting up the river authorities many of them will deliberately be smaller in the number of people on them than the existing river boards. That is one of the purposes of the Act. That being so, it is not a valid argument to say that that because a city or county was represented on the previous board, it therefore should be on the authority. Had we accepted that, the Act would have been different. There are many provisions in the Act about constitutions but had we accepted that argument one of its main purposes—to keep the number of people within reasonable limits—would have been entirely defeated and we might as well have taken over the river boards as they were.

Question put and negatived.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (SUPPLY OF INFORMATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. More.]

8.30 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black: I welcome the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment this evening the practice of the Metropolitan Police in supplying information and fingerprints regarding convicted persons. While I want to raise the general question, I am led to do so by a particular constituency case which was recently brought to my notice, and necessarily I shall have a good deal to say about that case in order to illustrate how unsatisfactorily, as it appears to me, existing arrangements in this matter are. I do not want to mention the name and address of my constituent as, in the circumstances of the case, it will be clear to the House as I develop my argument that it would be unfair to the individual that I should do so. But I have supplied my hon. Friend with all the particulars about the case. He knows the name of the individual to whose case I am referring, and I think that is sufficient for the purpose of this debate.
The case which I am particularly raising relates to a constituent of mine, or perhaps I should say a former constituent of mine, because about two years ago he removed out of Wimbledon and emigrated to Australia. But prior to his removal he had lived in Wimbledon for about 29 years. I do not think that I can tell his story better than by reading in a slightly abbreviated form a letter which he has written to me from Australia. This is what my constituent writes:
Having been a resident of Wimbledon for the past 29 years, and also run a business there, I feel that I have been the victim of a gross injustice, and should like your comments. About two years ago I migrated with my wife and son to Australia. Having had my capital considerably reduced in various ways, I applied for many jobs, eventually being promised a situation in an estate agent's office, subject to my applying to the New South Wales Police for permission to work there. You can imagine my surprise and disgust when a police officer called at my home last week and produced a photostat copy of my fingerprints and details of an offence I committed in England in 1927. All this had been supplied to him by the Records Depart-

ment of Scotland Yard. He also informed me that I would not be allowed to take the job as an estate agent's salesman. As I have committed no crime in Australia and have run a business in Wimbledon for the past 29 years, I cannot see why the British police should take the trouble to chase me around the world with details of something that I did as a young man over 37 years ago. If it is any satisfaction to Scotland Yard, they have succeeded in preventing a British subject from obtaining employment. As you probably know, there are many thousands of Poles, Dutch and Yugoslavs and other Europeans against whom no records are available. Therefore this is discriminating against a British subject with the co-operation of the British Government.
In conclusion, I was under the impression that, unless I committed a further offence, my previous misdemeanours would not be brought against me for any reason. If you wish to verify the truth of my statement you may check with New Scotland Yard and the New South Wales Police at the Court of Petty Sessions, Paddington, Sydney, New South Wales. I would like to add that, following the police sergeant's call upon me, I wrote to the police, as I was so annoyed, and withdrew my application, although I had already been told I could not take the position.
I am tempted to say, what a tragic and shocking case of man's inhumanity to man.
It appears that in New South Wales, and it may be in other parts of Australia as well, in order to be employed in an estate agency business a man or woman needs a licence from the police authority, and it was in this connection that this tragic experience of my constituent arose. I hold the view very definitely, and I think that this will be shared by other hon. Members and the public, that when once a man has paid the penalty of his wrong-doing—and that penalty may properly be a severe one if the offence is a serious one—the slate should be wiped clean and he should not be interfered with in seeking to resume his life and to undertake in future an honest and law-abiding career.
I anticipate from the correspondence which I have had on this matter that, among possibly others, there are three points which will be made in defence of what Scotland Yard did in this case. As I shall have no further opportunity of speaking, perhaps I may briefly mention those three matters and make my comments upon them. First, I think that it may be said that the outrageous treatment of my constituent is the responsibility and should be laid at the door of


the New South Wales police and that it cannot be properly laid at the door of the Metropolitan Police in London.
We in this House, of course, have no control over the police in New South Wales, although I am bound to say that on such information as we have about this case I consider that they have behaved in this matter with a singular disregard for the position of my constituent, and in a way which was bound to involve him in the utmost ignominy and embarrassment in the new country in which he has taken up his residence. But it is not sufficient to say that the fault in this case lies at the door of the New South Wales police, because they could not have taken the action that they did had they not been supplied with the information by New Scotland Yard, and it is the fact of that information having been supplied that I complain of so strongly this evening.
The second point which, I think, may be made is that when my constituent was refused an estate agent's licence for the reason I have mentioned that was not necessarily the end of the matter because, under the law of New South Wales, he had a right of appeal to a magistrate. This right of appeal he did not exercise. It was, of course, a matter for his own judgment and decision, and I have some sympathy with him in not pursuing the matter further. I have no evidence as to whether, if he had appealed, the appeal would have been heard in a public court in which the matter would have been gone into in public, possibly being reported in the newspapers in the town in which he was living. If this were so, one could very well understand his reluctance to appeal and give further publicity to the circumstances of his conviction by the British courts. One can sympathise with him in dropping the matter at that stage.
The third point which may be made is that this information was, so I understand, supplied by New Scotland Yard to the New South Wales police in pursuance of certain international arrangements which exist between the police in this country and police forces in many other parts of the world and according to which there is an agreement that information of this kind shall be exchanged. If, under such an agreement, New Scotland Yard was under an obligation, legal or moral, to supply the infor-

mation, then, I agree, New Scotland Yard would have been in difficulty in withholding it. But, if this be the case, I submit that the form of the present arrangement among police forces in different parts of the world is unsatisfactory in imposing that kind of obligation about the supply of information and such agreements should be revised and modified.
I am raising this matter tonight not because anything can be done at this stage to cure the harm which has been done to my constituent in his desire to live at peace and in honour in a new country and to obtain employment there, but because I am most anxious that something should be done by my hon. Friend at the Home Office to ensure that other cases of this kind do not arise in the future and that other citizens of this country elsewhere in the world do not run the risk of receiving similar treatment.
Let me briefly summarise the position of my constituent in this matter. It is not disputed that, 37 years ago, he was in trouble with the police. I understand that it may be said that he was guilty at that time of several offences, and I am willing to believe that those offences may have been serious. I understand that my constituent does not suggest that he was improperly convicted, and I do not think that he makes any complaint about the sentence imposed upon him. But what he does say—and he has my complete sympathy and support in it—is that this all happened when he was a young man, 37 years ago, and that, having paid the penalty which the law imposed upon him for his wrongdoing as a young man, he has for 37 years lived an honourable life.
He has carried on business of his own, a business which, I feel quite certain, was conducted satisfactorily and honestly. It really is too bad that, 37 years later, he should be put in the position of having all this raked up against him, and that another country on the other side of the world should have his fingerprints produced and the particulars of his conviction disclosed to the police who can have no possible interest in what happened so long before It really means that however long a convicted man may live, and however far away from the scene of his crime may go, he can never


escape from the possibility of the facts of his offence being made known.
It is almost impossible to imagine a case in which the justification for supplying the information would be more inadequate than in this case. In point of time, 37 years have elapsed since the conviction of this unfortunate man. In point of distance, he has gone as far away from this country as he can, and is now resident thousands of miles away, in Australia—on the other side of the world. But, he having gone straight for 37 years, the record of a youthful offence is dragged up against him at the instance of the police at New Scotland Yard and he is deprived of the opportunity of obtaining employment, with possibly disastrous consequences to himself and to his family.
I just cannot believe that the repercussions of this matter were in any way thought out by the person at New Scotland Yard who supplied this information. Anyone with any degree of humanity and fellow feeling at all would have realised how tragically unfair it would be in those circumstances to supply information to the police in Australia.
As I say, I am not concerned so much about this case, because the harm in this case is now past curing, but I am concerned that this should not happen again in other cases. I have always denied the truth of the charge sometimes brought against the police by persons who have been convicted that the police will never give them a chance of living an honest life after they have once been convicted and sent to prison. I should not like to think that this charge is true, but a case like this certainly lends strength to the feeling on the part of convicted people that they do not get fair treatment when they have paid the penalty of their wrongdoing; but that, however long they may live and however far away they may go, there is always the risk of a youthful offence being dragged out against them to their detriment. I hope that my hon. Friend may be able to give an assurance that he will look into the matter, and that steps will be taken to see that such a case as this will never occur again.

8.48 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): My hon. Friend the

Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) has raised a question of general concern, and has focussed his remarks particularly on a case in which it is impossible not to have some degree of sympathy. He has outlined the facts put before him by his former constituent, and I know that he will not think that I am in any way seeking to cast doubt on any of the statements made in good faith by his former constituent if I take the opportunity of outlining the case as we see it in London. From that point of view, the facts are as follows.
The story begins as far as we are concerned in November, 1963, when a letter was received at the Criminal Record Office at New Scotland Yard from New South Wales police asking for information about a man who had applied for registration there as a real estate salesman and asking whether anything of an adverse nature was known against him. It is not in dispute that this was my hon. Friend's former constituent, but I will follow my hon. Friend's excellent example of mentioning no names.
We have ascertained that applications for registration as estate agents in Australia are governed by the Auctioneers, Stock and Station Real Estate and Business Agents Acts, 1941 to 1957, which were introduced for the purpose of preventing the exploitation of persons desiring to purchase land.
The Criminal Record Office search disclosed certain convictions—more than one—in 1927 resulting, in one case, in nine months' imprisonment. In accordance with the normal procedure, this information was passed to the New South Wales police who, we are told on the authority of my hon. Friend, then told the applicant that his criminal record would result in the failure of his application for a licence. It appears then that the man forthwith withdrew his application without waiting for the decision of the licensing authority, although, as my hon. Friend has fairly recognised, he was under no obligation to do that.
It may help in considering the circumstances of the case if I begin by outlining the general practice of the Metropolitan Police on the disclosure of information, including fingerprints, to other police forces. At this point, I


should, perhaps, emphasise that all I am about to say applies only to the interchange of information on a police-to-police basis, because that is the context in which my hon. Friend has raised the subject.
There is, first, the question of the degree of freedom with which information is exchanged. It is a fundamental principle of police procedure that information should be freely available between police forces, provided, of course, that a normal degree of mutual confidence exists between them. It is accepted by everyone concerned that the information so exchanged is required in connection with law enforcement and the prevention and detection of crime and that the freedom of such exchanges is essential to enable each police force to obtain reciprocal benefits from the others. In other words, the essence of the practice is mutual trust, which must exist between police forces if they are to secure one another's co-operation in carrying out their own jobs.
There is, therefore, no general restriction on the kind of information that may be exchanged between one police force and another, whether it be a home or an overseas force and whether or not it is a member of Interpol. The information exchanged can include criminal records as well as information about the results of criminal inquiries. Nor, when information about a man's ciriminal record is sought, is this provided on a selective basis. At least, that is to say, no distinction is made between major and minor crimes or between recent and old ones. This is an aspect of the existing system which my hon. Friend criticised.
It has, however, always been considered—and I think that this is right—that where information is exchanged between police forces on a basis of mutual trust, it is not for the police who provide the information to edit it before passing it on. It is properly a matter for the receiving force to decide what is relevant and what is not and how much weight to attach to any part of the record. I do not mean to suggest that the Commissioner pays no regard to the possible use to which information so provided might be put or that there may not be circumstances in which a

request might be refused or might be met only partially.
For example, it is one of the aims of Interpol to promote the widest possible mutual assistance between criminal police within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries, but only so long as this does not involve intervention in matters of a political, military, religious or racial character. As, however, my hon. Friend will recognise, these considerations do not arise in the present case, which concerns a matter of law enforcement.
The only circumstances in which old or trivial past convictions may become expunged from the record is in the weeding process which is carried out periodically within the Metropolitan Police records. I believe that my hon. Friend and the House will bear with me if I refrain from disclosing in detail the circumstances in which that process of weeding is carried out. But I can assure the House that the convictions in the case which my hon. Friend raised this evening did not fall within any of the categories subject to the weeding procedure which, generally speaking, relates only to minor offences.
My hon. Friend also raised the question whether it is fair that people with criminal records emigrating from this country should be more vulnerable than immigrants who go to Australia from other countries where such records are, for one reason or another, not available. It seems to me that questions of this kind cannot be primarily matters for the country which provides the information. They must be primarily a matter for the country which initiates the inquiry. In our own country the police can only be expected to observe the normal procedures which they have here.
The essence of the criticism in the case raised tonight is twofold—first, that the Metropolitan Police should not have passed on information about convictions which occurred so long ago, and secondly, that the New South Wales police ought not to have regarded those convictions as justifying an objection to the grant of a licence nor ought they to have told the man concerned that such an objection would be lodged.
The first point concerns the length of time since the convictions occurred. It


is certainly true that the offences were committed a long time ago but, as I have said, it is the generally accepted practice that it is not for the police force which provides the information to decide what is likely to be relevant and what is not. The second point is one which touches on New South Wales legislation and the action of the New South Wales police. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that, however strongly he may feel on this matter in his constituent's interest, neither of these is a subject for which I have responsibility or indeed on which it would be proper for me to comment, except to say this: I am informed that the New South Wales police have a statutory duty to inquire into and to report upon the character of an applicant for a licence as a real estate agent in New South Wales.
Opinions may reasonably differ on the question what weight should be attached to any particular conviction in any particular case. But I must remind the House that the decision whether to grant a licence did not rest with the police and that according to my hon. Friend's constituent's own account, the man in question withdrew his application without waiting for the decision of the licensing authority or exercising his right of appeal.
My hon. Friend suggested, finally, that safeguards ought to be introduced to prevent such circumstances as arose in this case from occurring again. I hope that I have said enough to show that in providing the information in question the Metropolitan Police were acting properly in response to a legitimate request from an overseas police force. Nor for that matter, since the person concerned withdrew his application, have we any evidence one way or another, as my hon. Friend conceded, whether the disclosure of this information would or would not have resulted in his being prevented from setting up as an estate agent. In those circumstances, I could not accept that there was any abuse of the normal police-to-police procedure such as would justify an attempt to impose restrictions on the free exchange of information between police forces. But I should add that if any police force were found consistently to be using information that came on a police-to-police basis in a

manner or for purposes which the force providing the information considered improper, I have no doubt that the force which had been providing the information would consider very carefully indeed how far in future it ought to continue to meet such requests.
May I say that I agree that my hon. Friend has undoubtedly raised a problem of public importance, and he has presented it very persuasively from the point of view of the man concerned. I would only wish in conclusion to try to put the same problem from the point of view of the police. It seems unquestionably desirable that police forces should exchange information about criminal records provided that they have mutual confidence in each other. No one will dispute the propriety of such a relation between the Metropolitan Police and the State police of one of our most respected fellow members of the Commonwealth. Nor will anyone, I think, dispute that the Metropolitan Police must maintain adequate records of criminal activities even going back 40 years, since it is perfectly possible that these might be required by the courts of our own country.
What then has happened in this case? The New South Wales police made a perfectly proper inquiry which they were indeed obliged to make under their own law. It would have been quite wrong for the Metropolitan Police either to deny that they had that record of the man in question, which would have been a lie, or to attempt to conceal the character of the record. To have refused to answer the inquiry in these circumstances or to have answered it in deliberately evasive terms would have provoked suspicions at least as damaging as the truth itself. Under the present system the Metropolitan Police clearly had no alternative but to reply as they did.
My hon. Friend's criticisms can, therefore, only legitimately be directed either at the system itself or at the use made of the information by the New South Wales police, and he has, in fact, done both these things. So far as the system is concerned, it seems to me as a general proposition, as I have said, that it is indispensable, and I certainly cannot imagine that anyone concerned with law and order would wish to see it abolished


or even to see it selectively applied to the detriment of our colleagues in Australia.
So far as concerns the use in New South Wales of the information made available, I must repeat that it would be improper for me to comment on the conduct of the police in a country which, without understatement, I can describe as friendly, law-abiding and universally respected. But I should remind my hon. Friend again that it was for the court to decide in the last resort what weight to attach to the applicant's record and that his constituent did not, in fact, apparently wait to hear what the court would decide.
I hope I have said enough to make it clear that I am conscious that there is a real dilemma here. The particular case naturally commands sympathy, but I cannot accept that any impropriety was committed or that the Metropolitan Police are in any way open to criticism over what occurred.

ROY JOHN JAMES

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for allowing me very briefly to raise another Home Office matter. I do so because, as the House will appreciate, this may be almost the last opportunity we shall have in the present Parliament of doing so, and because the matter is one of some urgency. I apologise to the Joint Under-Secretary for not having been able to give him notice in detail of what I was going to raise, and, naturally, I cannot expect a detailed reply from him; perhaps he will simply be good enough to say that he will look urgently into the matter.
I am concerned about one of the mail-train robbers whose appeals against sentence and conviction were dismissed in the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday. One may remark in passing that these thirty-year sentences are an accurate reflection of the values of our society, since, if these men gain the maximum possible remission, they will be serving twice as long for an offence against property—admittedly a very grave offence—as is normally served by those who take human life.
The man concerned is Roy John James and the information I have about him comes to me from his fiancée, who called to see me this afternoon: she is a young lady of obvious respectability and credibility. According to her, James has been undergoing very severe restrictions indeed on the privileges normally allowed to prisoners whose appeals are pending. He is, or was until today, in Brixton. His appeal visits have been restricted. He has been refused permission to communicate with his solicitors—in startling contrast with the unique privilege accorded to Kenneth de Courcy, who had seventy-four whole days at his solicitor's office. But then, Mr. Roy John James is not a man of wealth and influence and is not a staunch supporter, like Mr. de Courcy, of the present Administration. However, let that pass.
James has also been denied the usual monthly visits. His fiancée, who lives in Berwickshire, came to London yesterday in the expectation of being allowed to see him. She was told that she could not see him, but she did not know that he was in court. She waited at Brixton Prison for 3½ hours, from 1.30 p.m. to 5 p.m., without anyone having the courtesy to tell her that he was in court and that she would not be able to see him that day.
Finally, and perhaps most important constitutionally to hon. Members, he has not been allowed to communicate with his Member of Parliament. I am not his M.P. I have tried to contact his Member this evening but, as will be appreciated, this is not an evening for an exceptionally full House. I felt, however, that I should bring this to the attention of the House and of the Home Office at once, because the last of these points in particular is one about which all hon. Members are particularly sensitive. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, by leave of the House, will say that he will look into this matter at once.

9.8 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Wood-house): Ely leave of the House, I will reply briery. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) for making it clear that he was raising this matter without notice and that therefore it was impossible for me, in the circumstances, to give a detailed reply to the


points he has raised. But I will certainly communicate them as a matter of urgency to my right hon. Friend at the Department and I will undertake to ensure that the hon. Member receives an answer at the earliest possible opportunity.

WORLD HEALTH RESEARCH CENTRE

9.9. p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East) rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Does the hon. Member rise to continue this discussion?

Mr. Bence: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have given notice that I wish to raise the matter of the World Health Organisation. I gave due notice according to the Rules laid down some time ago and I understand that the Government Whip has notified the appropriate Minister. I understand that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will reply.
Many of us look upon the W.H.O. and the idea of a world health research centre as being very important to the world. Tonight I want to deal with the possibility of establishing in this country the proposed research centre and to urge that it should be in Scotland, although I do not want to be accused of being parochial.
I appreciate as much as anyone how difficult it is to get all the members of the United Nations to agree not only about the establishment of a world health research centre, but on where it should be established. There are several agencies of the United Nations in Switzerland and there are others in France and the United States, but we do not seem to have any in Britain. I doubt whether the Government are pressing hard enough for the establishment of such a centre in this country.
There is some conflict among Ministers about the value of this concept. The Lancet reported Sir George Godber as saying that the establishment of a research centre should be based on a national health service and could not be established on a world basis. However, in answer to a Question in the House, the Prime Minister supported the idea of a world health research

centre. There seems to be a conflict of ideas among different members of the Government, from the Prime Minister down to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and among the various agencies of the Government outside Parliament. The discussion has been going on for some time and no decision has yet been taken. No doubt this is because many governments, like our own, are equivocating about the desirability of the establishment of such a centre. However, in this respect Britain is unique, for we are part of a world-wide oceanic Commonwealth.
Much of that Commonwealth is poor and backward and much of it spreads across equatorial areas through climatic belts where many tropical diseases are common. In the last 100 years, much has been done by British medical research to fight diseases common to much of the British Commonwealth which runs through Central Africa, India, Malaysia, Australia the Caribbean and Northern South Amercia.
In London, there is now a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers at which all sorts of questions are being discussed. A splendid contribution which the House of Commons can make—it would be one of the great contributions of this Parliament—would be to convince the Prime Ministers' Conference and the United Nations and its special agencies that we in Britain, particularly in Scotland, could establish a world health research centre to serve the British Commonwealth.
If we cannot get a world-wide decision, why should we not establish a regional health research centre serving the Commonwealth? Under the United Nations Charter, we are all striving for world order, world government and a world peace organisation, but as we cannot get that yet, we have to take the next best thing and have regional pacts and regional organisations. No one quarrels with that. We start with a small unit and build up, starting on the basis of the widest agreement. Why not start in this case with the Commonwealth and have a centre in this country serving the needs of all branches of medicine throughout the British Commonwealth.
This week Malawi, which was previously known as Nyasaland, celebrated


her independence in Blantyre. Nearly every institution in this country was developed by missionaries from Scotland. This country was discovered by Dr. Livingstone. The majority of its Christian establishments are derivatives of the Church of Scotland. The Scottish influence there is terrific. Malawi was once part of a federation which failed for reasons into which we need not inquire during this debate. The ties between this new nation state in Africa and the Scottish nation are the strongest that exist between a black nation and a white one, and anyone who visits that country soon learns that Scotland means something to the people there.
I am convinced that the establishment of a world health research centre would have a tremendous psychological effect on the nations of the Commonwealth, especially if that centre were in Scotland, because wherever one goes in the Commonwealth one discovers that the Scots are known as great medical and theological missionaries. Scots have played a tremendous part in the development of the Commonwealth. From New Zealand, right through to Malaysia one finds Scots who have served those countries in the Civil Service, in medicine, and in other ways.
I believe that this process should be continued by building this research centre in Scotland. The World Health Organisation is doing wonderful work. Its contribution to tropical medicine is well-known and admired by everyone. This research centre would bring together the doctors from India, from Africa, from the Australias and from the Caribbean. They would all congregate at this great centre of learning and research.
I have here a report which refers to the problems of developing countries, and to the need for research not only into biological medicine, but into diseases for plants, the use of insecticides and pesticides, and their effect on vegetation and the animal life in those countries.
Our experience in dealing with these developing countries has equipped us to run this research centre. After all, for centuries we have been regarded as the mother country. People in the West Indies still regard Britain as the mother country. It sounds remarkable, but it

is true. Although some of them have never been here, they regard Britain as the mother country, and even those who on visiting this country for the first time have been treated rather harshly regard this country in that light. Such an institution as this, particularly if it were established in Scotland, would make a great contribution.
Why do I think that it should be established in Scotland? Something must be done to redistribute the Metropolitan aspeet of London. Whenever we get the idea of establishing an organisation in Britain, everyone thinks in terms of establishing it is London. We could create in the North, and in Scotland in particular, a sort of regeneration—a movement towards Scotland of all forms of investment—if we had there something symbolical of the Metropolitan area, or something besides St. Andrew's House as a sort of centre to which people look.
We have the Edinburgh Festival. That has done a great deal of good for Scotland. Cultured people all over Britain and Europe now look upon Edinburgh as the Athens of the North. This does good for Scotland. It is a good thing for all those people who come to Scotland to the Festival and see the reproduction not only of their own art but the art of this country, and meet the Scottish people. If a world health centre or research centre were established in Scotland it would again put Scotland into the vision of the peoples of Europe, the developing ountries and the underdeveloped countries, and this would enable Scotland to recover the tremendous position which she held many years ago.
The potential is there. We are training medical people from the underdeveloped countries in our universities and colleges. They are going into European schools of medicine and then going back to their own countries. It would be highly desirable if we could have a large medical research centre with a capacity sufficient to serve both in basic research and applied research—biochemistry and inorganic chemistry. To put this in Scotland would render great service to our Commonwealth, and would give a lead to the United Nations and the other nations of the world to come closer together in research in order


to alleviate some of the sicknesses and diseases in the under-developed countries.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some hope that through the Commonwealth we can give a lead which the other nations of the world at present do not seem prepared to give.

9.22 p.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: Normally one would expect that the final subject before the House would be that which was last printed on the Order Paper—and that today it would be the one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) concerning
the practice of the Metropolitan Police in supplying information and fingerprints regarding convicted persons.
I am well acquainted with the proceedings of the House and I know that that matter having been disposed of and the House not having been informed that anything would follow thereafter except the normal procedure of adjourning the House and the cry of "Who goes home?" a further subject has been raised.
There may be complaint about this, but by a peculiar set of circumstances this has been a peculiarly Scottish week. Upstairs in Committee we have dealt with a divorce Bill concerning Scotland, and Scottish business was the main preoccupation of the House today. When I saw the name of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on the enunciator I came into the Chamber wondering how he was relating his argument to the last subject that appears on the Order Paper. I now find that he has been relating it to something which is not on the Order Paper. He has referred at some length to his visit to Central Africa and has related his arguments to Nyasaland. He will recall that he and I were together in Nyasaland and in Central Africa.
The hon. Member has been arguing for the establishment of a World Health Organisation centre either in Scotland or somewhere in Britain. I could not agree with that more. The subject was raised in this House some months ago when there was a reference to a research department. I suggested that it might be

sited in Scotland, but I did not receive any satisfactory answer. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East that this would be a desirable thing to do. If the Government are attracted to the idea of a department being established in this country, I wish to support the suggestion of the hon. Member that it should be sited in Scotland.
I see that on the Opposition Front Bench is seated the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who never seems to sleep, who is always alert and always able to talk on whatever subject is raised in this Chamber or in a Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge, great intelligence and sometimes with a sense of humour. I see him sitting there, and I see that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is seated next to him.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East because I was not in the Chamber at the moment when he started to speak, but I did not anticipate that this subject would be raised tonight. I am sure that few of the 630 hon. Members knew that it would be raised.

Mr. Bence: Hon. Members who attend to the business of the House and note that there is free time can make use of it, and as an active Member of this House I am always watching for such opportunities.

Commander Donaldson: The fact is that this subject was not placed on the Order Paper. I am one of those hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies who tries always to be alert.
I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to this debate we shall be told whether the Government agree that an organisation should be set up in this country, and whether we are to contribute to it financially. I am not certain whether it is the desire of the Government that such an establishment should be set up in this country, but if it is I hope that it will be sited in Scotland because of the difficulties experienced there in relation to unemployment and other things. It could be established in the Borders where depopulation is going on. It might not bring the kind of industry we need, but it would provide housing for a number of people and it would be very pleasant for those so engaged because they would be situated


in an area of beauty contiguous to Edinburgh with all the facilities needed.
It is only for that reason that I intervene in this debate. I realise that some of us, especially Scottish hon. Members, have spent many hours here throughout this week, but this matter having been raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, I could not let it pass because I have raised it in a different sense earlier. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, will say that if this centre is to come to Britain it should come somewhere south-east of Edinburgh, contiguous to Edinburgh, in the constituency I have the honour to represent.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on his ingenuity in raising this very important matter this evening. I remember at the beginning of the year, when the possibility of a world health research organisation being established in Scotland first flashed in the headlines of the Scotish Press, how welcome that was to the people of Scotland, especially those in Edinburgh. The idea was hailed as bold, imaginative, far-seeing and one which could bring great credit and advantages to Scotland.
It was pursued in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) and others of my hon. Friends. We pursued it both in deputations and by Questions in this House. We were most disconcerted to find that the Government apparently did not look upon the scheme with the same favour as we did and that the United Kingdom representative had spoken against it when the executive of the World Health Organisation first considered the matter. We failed to see why the Government were taking this attitude. Then we were told that the Government had consulted the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy and it was on the basis of a report from that Council that they had taken this decision.
Not until two or three weeks ago, on 25th June, was the advice tendered by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy published. We are now able to see the reasons which were proffered

to the Government. They were very powerful reasons, but we felt that the Government ought also to consult the large number of scientists in this country who seem to be in favour of the scheme. Clearly, there was a division of opinion among scientists in this country, a great many of whom thought that the idea to establish a large research centre having three functions was a good one. while the Advisory Council came down against it. We should like to have seen the reasons why other scientists differed from the view of the Advisory Council. We have never been able to find this out.
Very eminent men have given a lot of thought to this and are in favour of it. Eminent professors in Scotland and in England are in favour of the scheme. I do not wish to mention names because that would be invidious, but the Government know that this is a true statement. In view of the nature of this scheme, the Government ought to have gone to more trouble than they have taken to try to get an accurate assessment of its real value. I am not convinced that they have taken enough trouble. Their reply is, "The Advisory Committee are prepared to accept the idea that an international organisation for the purpose of health communications and for the assembly and processing of information is a good idea. They felt that the world centre for epidemiology was a good idea. But they did not think that a world health centre for biological research was a good idea, and the Government have accepted their view".
From conversations and discussions which I have had from time to time with my hon. Friends, I believe that they agree with me when I say that this attitude is not good enough. The Government ought to show much more aggression and enthusiasm in tackling this problem. What are the arguments which divide the scientists? Why should not the Government try to find out the other side of the case, which I understand is a good side? If they are to take a useful attitude the next time the matter is raised in the World Health Organisation, the Government must find out the other side of the case. We should like the Government to be in such a position, when the matter comes up again at the World Health Organisation, that they will be able to support


us. It is difficult for us to claim that the centre should be put in this country if we are opposed to it. We must be much more positively in favour of the idea than we have been up to the present, and we ought to be finding arguments in favour of it and inquiring much more into its possibiliites.
The arguments of the Advisory Council are set out in cc. 111 and 112 of HANSARD of 25th June. I respect them and they include some very powerful arguments, but there is also a case to be made against some of them. These are the aspects which the Government ought to be pursuing.
In Scotland we felt that this was an enormous thing for us. Edinburgh Corporation has made representations to the Secretary of State supporting the proposal and asking that the Development Council of the Scottish Office, the Secretary of State and the Government should pursue the matter. There is a general interest and enthusiasm here, because Edinburgh, in particular, and the surrounding district have a long medical tradition. Edinburgh is one of the world's foremost medical centres, and the men associated with Edinburgh are world-famous. I name Simpson, and I could go through a long list, but I do not wish to do so. Edinburgh is noted for this even today. People come from all over the world to Professor Dott, probably the greatest brain specialist in the world today.
Medicine has been the life of Edinburgh for generations. Men and women have come there from all over the world to gain their knowledge and skills. This proposal is regarded there as one of the most imaginative that has been put forward for a long time. There is tremendous enthusiasm for it and we should like to see the Government pursuing it with the same enthusiasm and trying to overcome the difficulties so that we can go forward to the World Health Organisation to support the idea which is being brought before its Council at the beginning of next year.
We should like to have the centre in Scotland, but no matter where it is we think that it would be a good thing for this country that a world-wide organisation, a gathering ground for world scientists, should be established here. There is

a centre at Dounreay to which nuclear scientists come from many parts of the world because we in this country are ahead of other countries in the researches pursued there.
This proposed international organisation would be a body where ideas would be exchanged and research promoted and developed and which would give benefits to scientists from every country, including our own. Surely this is something well worth having and about which we should be displaying much more enthusiasm and interest than is being displayed at the moment. I know that my colleagues share any feeling on the subject. We do not have a great many things to get excited about under the present Government but this is something about which we could all get excited, and if it brings any germ of consolation to the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) I would say that I should not mind if it were located in his beautiful constituency.
It is interesting to note that in spite of what the Government have said and the reasons given by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and by the Minister of Health and various other Government spokesmen, and in spite of what has appeared in HANSARD and the statement since by the Advisory Council, the people most closely concerned with promoting this idea in Scotland are still convinced that it should be supported by the Government. In view of all this, I appeal to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to convey to his right hon. Friends our feelings on the subject and to rouse enthusiasm for it within himself and convey that to his colleagues.
Let them get a move on and forget the election for a day or two and think about this. The election will be forgotten within a few months, but this idea will go on. Let them convey this feeling of enthusiasm. Let us try to find out all the answers. The Government must not base their attitude on one side of the case only. This is a project about which eminent men hold different views.
What are the other views? What have the Government tried to find out? What have they done to canvass the support of scientists as distinct from the Advisory Council? Have they tried to


find out why so many eminent scientists in Scotland and the South are in favour of this idea? To what extent have the Government tried to take the initiative and promote the project?
If we can have a progress report from the Government tonight on what they have been doing about this tremendously important project, the debate will have been well worth while, and I shall be most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I also am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) for raising this matter. We Scots get the blame for a lot of things, but I nearly began by asking whether a Scot might intervene in the debate. The first speaker in the debate was a Welshman, the second was a Canadian and the third was an Englishman, all Members representing Scottish seats. This shows the catholic nature of Scotland in these matters. Scots recognise merit wherever it comes. This is probably part of the reason why we are able to see much more clearly and imaginatively the value of a scheme such as this when first it is brought forward.
This is not an idea thought up overnight. The suggestion for a world health research centre was the result of a deliberate study over a full year by scientists and doctors from all over the world, including Britain. Two of them were Nobel prize winners. It was not something thought up by politicians. As the president of the World Health Organisation said, it was the logical outcome that the World Health Organisation should extend its work in international research. The suggestion is that there should be a world health research centre, with three divisions. It would study epidemiology and the infectious diseases from a world point of view. Everyone will readily appreciate the value of that. I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will. I express our thanks to the hon. Gentleman for coming to the House tonight and taking a continued interest in this matter. As he came in, I thought that no one would know more about the value of such work than he. He knows what happens in many parts of the world. He will remember where we first met and the places we travelled over more or less

together. I am not sure whether he returned the book which I lent him in 1944. He will remember Ceylon, Burma, Singapore and places East of Suez. We all know what has recently happened in Scotland—an epidemic suddenly descending on the cleanest city in the country. We must not, therefore, for a moment think that all the necessary study on infectious diseases has been done.
The second object is the collection, dissemination and translation of information on health and research matters, so letting the world know what is happening and what progress has been made. Many people are shut off from this information and are very anxious to get as much of it as possible. I gather that the Government are not against this. These two things are at present being done by the World Health Organisation, but the proposal is to extend the work, and extend it in the way of centralising in one place.
Then there is the setting up of the complex of laboratories of fundamental research. Bio-medical, cellular, molecular research—call it what we will—is fundamental and basic to our physical lives and is probably the field in which we could, by mastering the problems of lengthening the life span and, in lengthening it, making it comfortable, make advances. There is the problem of cancer, the degenerative diseases, and all the medical problems arising out of ageing. We have been very worried by the Government's attitude of opposition because of difficulties. They have certainly given us the impression that they have been slow even in giving support in principle. They could have done far more.
The Government rest their opinion on advice they were given, but it took us a long time to find out what that advice was. This is not the first time we have raised, this subject. An Adjournment debate we had on the matter just before Whitsun was the climax of quite a number of discussions, Questions and debates—and deputations. I remember that my hon. Friend took a deputation to see the Minister who is now Secretary of State of—all that accumulation of nonsense—the bellringer. We were not terribly happy about the result.
Eventually—on, I think, 9th April—we had a series of Questions, and once again my Scottish colleagues were trying to wrest information. I remember on that occasion winding up that series of Questions by asking the Government to publish the advice they had been given. We were told that the Government were working on advice given by the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy and the Medical Research Council, and the Minister of State for Higher Education said that the Government would consider whether or not to publish it. By means of pressure, we eventually got it on 25th June. There is no doubt that the Government got advice, and acted on it.
The point is that this was again considered at Geneva. Once again there was no support for it from the British Government but, despite that, the project is not dead. It is a tremendously imaginative and extensive scheme, and it deserves continued study. The decision was that there would be study for another year.
Our concern is whether the Government will rest upon the advice that they have been given or will take into account the mood of many people in the country who know something about the problem and who have been actively concerned with its international aspects. Will they bend to the will of the world about the needs in this matter? In other words, is further study being given particularly to the third division of this suggested project by the Government? I want to know more than that. Who else has been consulted? If the Government have not consulted anyone, if they say that they are satisfied that the advice which they got at that time was right, will they look over the whole history of medicine and of every imaginative project ever put forward? Even governments have said, "No"—they must go easy. My hon. Friend mentioned Simpson. I do not blame the Government of that time, but we can blame the Establishment that he conducted the researches in his own room with his own family and friends. That house is still there in Edinburgh and is used, I believe, by the Church of Scotland.

Commander Donaldson: Queen Street.

Mr. Ross: Queen Street, Edinburgh. I did not know the street, but I could

have taken the hon. and gallant Member there. I could take him to other places nearby which are a disgrace to that same City of Edinburgh.
When contemplating the conditions under which earlier research was conducted, we must pay tribute to the imagination, ability and persistence of those who did it. There is no doubt that Edinburgh has gained greatly in the reflected glory of the doctors, surgeons and medical men who trained and worked there and gave their ability, not only to the people of Edinburgh, but to the people of the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If Scotland has given to the world more than anything else in the way of professional men, it has been doctors. My hon. Friend spoke about missionaries. Most of the missionaries were doctors. Many of them still are. I remember being at the Church Assembly this year and hearing debates about this and deploring the fact that today, unfortunately—I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is not wearying in this eulogy of our land. We are always being told by hon. Members opposite, when they are here, that we run Scotland down. We do not. We run down the government of Scotland.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I had no criticism of Scotland or of Scotsmen in mind. The hon. Member remarked at the outset of his speech that this was a remarkable debate in that, until he rose to speak, the applicants for this project were not Scots although they represented Scottish constituencies. I hope that the hon. Member will allow me sufficient time to reply to his arguments. I assure him that I was listening with rapt attention to every word he uttered.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is a man of discrimination. When I was eulogising Scotland and what it has done in the medical world, and particularly Edinburgh, I was grateful to note that from every part of the House there came "Hear, hears". We can take it that it is generally recognised—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

Mr. Ross: This plan is certainly beyond (he means of any one country. The research that requires to be done is beyond any one country's means. It will bring tremendous problems to the country that becomes the home of this research centre. Certain financial commitments would have to be entered into.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will know that although we have been laggard in supporting the scheme, there is considerable support internationally that if the scheme comes forward it should be in Scotland. Indeed, at least one authority—Fife—has offered free an estate of 63 acres on which it could be built. The site is fairly near the new Forth Road Bridge. I am certain that facilities in Edinburgh would be offered if the decision were taken, as I hope it will be, that it should be there.
We will not argue about where it should be. I should be happy if it was anywhere in Britain. It so happens that, for historic and other reasons, certain parts have their claim. The first thing on which we must fasten is the need to get the Government even thinking that the possibility is worth while. I wish that they would get their feet out of the sloughy mud of politics. They have become obsessed with votes and forget their obligations, not just to the next General Election, but to the next generation.
We have always in this field been able to give a lead to the world. We have prided ourselves that, although we have lost part of our great military glory and, it may be, some of the economic power that we once wielded, we still have this knowledge and right to lead in these matters. We ask that the Government shall give that lead. Let us not lag behind.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, first, whether there has been any decisive change of heart by the Government in this respect. If they are still thinking about it, with whom are they thinking? Have they taken any further advice other than that from the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy and the Medical Research Council? If they have sought advice from other bodies or persons, perhaps from universities, will they tell us from whom they have sought it?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give us 25 minutes of waffled

apology. Although Parliament has only a few weeks to go, this matter will be in our minds and our debates until that time and thereafter, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will treat it, as I am sure he will, with the seriousness that the subject merits.

10.5 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) generously recognised at the outset that I heard of the intention of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire. East (Mr. Bence) to raise this subject only a very short time ago. In view of the importance which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock attaches to the subject, and the criticisms which he has been hurling at the Government, it is a pity that earlier notice could not have been given. However, I acquit the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East of any blame in that repect because I know how courteous he is. I fully recognise this to be an important subject and because of that I should have liked longer notice in order to give the fullest possible answer.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member will appreciate that business which was to come before the House tonight was withdrawn only yesterdsay. That was all the notice we had. We did not know that the proceedings in the House would collapse at an early hour until about half an hour before it happened. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my hon. Friend could not have given earlier notice. In the situation, notice having been so short, we pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for being present.

Mr. Braine: What I am trying to make plain at the outset is that in the circumstances I cannot be expected to give as full and detailed a reply to hon. Gentlemen opposite as I know they would wish and as I myself would have liked to give.
I thank the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East not merely for raising the subject but for the way in which he has done so. I followed his remarks with great interest. I entirely agree with him about the importance of the World Health Organisation and the necessity for any civilised Government to support it as much as it can. Indeed.


I think we can be proud of the contribution that we already make to the World Health Organisation. I have had time to look up the statement setting out the contributions of member States to 1965 of the Organisation's budget, and I think it should be put on record that, after the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union, countries larger in population and resources than our own, we are the third highest contributor. Secondly, it ought to be said, since it is sometimes a charge that we do not devote enough of our resources to medical research at home, that in recent years Government expenditure on civil science has been stepped up considerably. In 1963–64 the amount devoted to medical and health research alone was more than three times greater than in 1950–51.
A specific question has been raised about the proposal for setting up a world health research centre, and a specific claim has been made for this to be done in Scotland. I will do my best to answer. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East said, as subsequent speakers have also done, that there was a certain amount of confusion and division in the Government on this subject. This is not so. Moreover, we ought to be clear at the beginning about the status of the proposal and the stage which it has reached. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock implied that the idea that there should be such a research centre was mooted a considerable time ago. I think, however, that it was only in January that the Director General presented a paper on the subject to the Executive Board of the World Health Organisation. The Board gave some preliminary consideration to the paper and requested the Director General to secure the views of member States and to continue his study.
I understand that at the meeting of the Assembly in March, the Board transmitted the paper to the Assembly only for its information and not for definitive action. I believe that at the Assembly there was little support for setting up an autonomous international centre for fundamental and biological research. The Director General himself, in summing up the discussion, said that no final decision could be expected at the

present stage and the matter needed further study.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, called the proposal for setting up an international research centre bold and imaginative—but it was not the sole proposal that had been put forward. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock pointed out, there were others. First, there was the proposal for an international laboratory for fundamental research. Secondly, there was a proposal for more extensive development of international epidemiological studies. Thirdly, there was a call for easier dissemination of information about the results of scientific investigations.
I want to make it plain that the British Government fully support the second and third of these proposals. Indeed, we have done a great deal in both these fields already. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock mentioned that he and I first encountered one another in South-East Asia at the headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander in the war against Japan. Since then both of us have travelled a great deal. I think that I have been to every Commonwealth country in Asia and Africa. I have been to many other Commonwealth countries as well and to many foreign countries. One cannot go anywhere in the tropics without being reminded in some way of the activities of British medical scientists, whether in an earlier age when Scottish medical missionaries went to what is now Malawi and other parts of Africa—and one must never forget David Livingstone, a Scotsman, who was one of the first Europeans to venture into Central Africa—or whether in more modern times by British medical teams and advisers at work in the unceasing struggle against ill health and disease. The eradication of malaria, tuberculosis and a host of other diseases which have been killing vast numbers of people and crippling even more owes a great deal to the work of our own people.
But in considering any proposal to set up a new research organisation in this country, whether in England or Scotland, the House would naturally expect us to look at it very closely and to take the best possible scientific advice. This is what we did. We sought the advice of the Advisory


Council on Scientific Policy. This is an extremely weighty body. Its Chairman, Lord Todd, is a most distinguished chemist. Its members include Sir Harold Himsworth, Secretary of the Medical Research Council, Sir Harry Melville, Secretary of the D.S.I.R., Sir Solly Zuckerman, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Secretary of State for Defence, and other scientists of considerable stature and of world renown.
The Council had considered the subject of international scientific cooperation two years ago. In the statement which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Education and Science made in the House on 25th June, he quoted the Council as having given its views on this subject in its Annual Report for 1961–62 and said that it had considered the World Health Organisation's proposals in the light of the general principles which it had laid down at that time. The Council said in a reference to the dissemination of information and to epidemiological studies,
… we consider that the World Health Organisation should operate mainly through national organisations, and that there should not be any need to set up centralised laboratory facilities in order to do what is required in these fields.
The Council said that they had carefully considered the main proposal, namely, that a large international laboratory for biological research should be set up and financed internationally, and was unanimously opposed to it for reasons which it set out. Hon. Members will have had the opportunity to study those reasons, which are compelling and cogent. Perhaps I may summarise them.
In its Report for 1961–62 the Council had pointed out the disadvantage of concentrating the best scientific talent in one place, thus isolating it from teaching functions in national universities, and it recorded the view that centralised institutions were valuable only where the research facilities required were of such an extensive character that they could not be provided on a national basis. It now considered—and this is the reply to those who say that this is far too big a task for a single country—that:
The facilities required in this case need not be exceptionally costly, nor beyond the

means of most countries with a capability for the kind of research which is in question.
it said that our most urgent need at the moment in this country
is to increase the supply of suitably trained research workers. It would be harmful to this country, and to its progress in biological research, if a number of our leading biologists were to withdraw to an international laboratory.
The Council went on:
The belief that the concentration in one very large institution of leading scientists from a number of countries would promote an interchange of knowledge and ideas which does not take place at the present time is, in our view, mistaken. We believe that, on the contrary, concentration of this kind might well have a sterilising effect, and reduce the influence of the people concerned on the development of research.
The Council also said:
We consider that the basic objectives of the World Health Organisation proposals could more readily and more economically be obtained by improved co-ordination and support for decentralised national efforts of member countries.
These were the Council's reasons for unanimously advising the Government not to support this aspect of the proposal.
I was asked whether the Government had sought advice from any other quarter. I should have liked notice of that question, but I am clear in my own mind that we consulted the Medical Research Council, as the House would expect. The House will know that there is no more powerful body, no better equipped body, in the world than our own Medical Research Council to supervise the conduct of medical research. I think that I am right in saying that the members of the Medical Research Council fully support the view of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy.

Mr. Ross: We asked the Council to do this on 9th April. The hon. Gentleman will find Questions in columns 1201 and 1202 of that date by my hon. Friends the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and myself, asking the Government to seek further advice. The Minister was not able to answer us then, but we had thought that by this time the hon. Gentleman would be able to give us some information. We do not necessarily ask for


names, but if he can tell us that further study is being undertaken, it would be helpful.

Mr. Braine: Not having had experience of the Government machine, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can be forgiven for not knowing how the system works. The Government have at their disposal, at any time, advice from experts. There are serving my Minister, a whole host of standing advisory committees which are composed of the very best brains in the medical and scientific world. At any given time a Department of the Government can obtain advice of this quality.
The party opposite constantly harps on the need to take into account the scientific and technological revolution which is taking place. That is good advice, but I come back to the advice given to us by the Advisory Council which said:
We have had occasion, in our Annual Reports, to comment on the condition of the biological sciences in British universities. Something approaching a revolution is in progress, and a new biology—which is more closely associated with the physical sciences—is now developing. But there is still an insufficient supply of first-class scientists to lead research and teaching in this field at our universities…
The Report went on to say that our most urgent need was to increase the supply of suitably trained research workers.
It is all very well to suggest, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East did, that this is a wonderful idea, that it is bold, imaginative and far-seeing. The question that we have to ask ourselves is whether it would serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Willis: Of course it would.

Mr. Braine: I cannot be drawn further in this regard. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, having obtained this advice, we would not treat it lightly. In the light of the best advice available, it is the Government's view that this project would not serve a useful purpose at this stage.
If I had all the information available, and had a week in which to prepare for this debate, I would not attempt to

explain the differences which may emerge between scientists. No evidence has been advanced to show that the Advisory Council was talking nonsense. Not a single argument has been advanced to show that the Medical Research Council was talking nonsense.

Mr. Willis: I did not suggest that they were. I said that the reasons they advanced were powerful ones. I do not dispute that, though I do not necessarily agree with them all. What is important to us at this stage is to ask the hon. Gentleman whether this now represents the Government's fixed view so that we can expect no change before January of next year, or whether the Government are keeping an open mind on this matter and are prepared to accept arguments and representations which might tend to influence them the other way.

Mr. Braine: I noted that both the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked me a specific question on that subject. They asked whether there is to be a further study—whether our minds are open on the subject. We must realise that this proposal has to be considered by many other countries. It must convince not merely the Government of the United Kingdom but those of many other countries. It would be quite unreasonable of the hon. Member to expect me to give some specific assurance on this tonight.
I could, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock recognises, have sat here and listened carefully to the whole debate, and I could not have been criticised, according to the precedents and customs of the House, if I had sat back and said nothing. I know that the hon. Member is an experienced Parliamentarian, and at times a very generous opponent, and that he recognises the truth of what I am saying.
But I did listen carefully to what was said. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East upon his special pleading. If there were to be a proposal of this kind it is not a bad thing to stake a claim for one's own constituency or ones own part of the Kingdom, but I can do no more tonight than to say that I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Educa-


tion and Science, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, what has been said. This I will gladly undertake to do, but beyond that, in all reason and fairness, I am sure that

hon. Members would not wish to press me.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.